IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10943 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJI KUMAR.K, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KAMALASANAN, KAMALALAYAM, UNDAPPARA, POOVACHAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 575. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RACPC BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. BY SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10943 of 2011-P ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is the secured asset was proceeded against by invoking Section 14 (1) on approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. It is evident from Exts.P3 and P4 that the matter is now pending consideration before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The petitioner apprehends that he will be dispossessed from the property pursuant to such proceedings. 2. According to the petitioner the loan in question was availed in the year 2005 with a repayment period of 15 years, and the coercive steps were pursued without acceding to the request made by the petitioner to permit regularisation. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. 3. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the respondent W.P(C) No.10943 of 2011-P 2 Bank. It is submitted that the loan account is in chronic default and the amount outstanding for payment is more than Rs.1.67 lakhs. Since the petitioner has not taken any earnest efforts to regularise the account, the Bank has not acceded to such request. 4. Considering the effective remedy available under the statute, interference of this Court is not at all justified. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to permit regularisation on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke statutory remedy. 5. Considering the limited prayer, I am of the view that, eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, indulgence can be shown in permitting regulrisation. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the outstanding amounts overdue for payment (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses if any due), in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments, W.P(C) No.10943 of 2011-P 3 falling due on or before 30.4.2011 and on or before the last day of succeeding months along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of the future monthly instalments in terms of the original schedule of repayment. 8. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated or any future instalments, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab