IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2075 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25834/2008 Dated 03/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER: JOSEPH XAVIER ANTHRAPPER 48 YEARS S/O XAVIER 1/185 MUTTAM THAIKATTUKARA P.O. ALUVA-683 106 BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA REGION-II Z.O. ERNAKULAM 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA ALUVA TOWN 3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR CENTRAL OFFICE MUMBAI 400 001. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF BANKING AFFAIRS NEW DELHI BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHADRAN PILLAI ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2075 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25834/08, dated 3-9-2008. 2. Though the petitioner has raised several contentions in the writ petition, while questioning the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), had confined his writ petition, at the time of admission, only for grant of instalment facility for payment of amounts due to the respondents. 3. The learned Single Judge, taking a very sympathetic view of the matter, granted instalment facility to the petitioner to discharge his liability towards the respondents/financial institution. The most harmless order of the learned Single Judge is made the subject matter of this writ appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition, in the first paragraph itself, is stated as under: “The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of W.A.No.2075 OF 2008 :: 2 :: Security Interest Act, 2002, initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 for coercive recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the 2nd respondent bank. However, the petitioner, does not dispute the liability to pay or the quantum. He submits that because of very serious liver disease, he had to spent more than six lakhs rupees for the treatment and therefore he may be given instalment facility to pay off the amounts due.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would indicate that what was asked and argued by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was only for grant of instalment facility. In our opinion, what was not asked and argued by the petitioner or his counsel cannot be granted by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we reject this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes