IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/3RD PHALGHUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 36596 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- SUNIL HASSAN, AGED 34, S/O.NESSI HASSAN, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE VALLYAKULAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT: -------------- ALLEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,ALP.DIST.CO-OP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36596 of 2010 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF PAYMENT RECEIPT EXTP2: COPY OF APPLICATION U/S 14 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.36596 of 2010-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a guarantor with respect to a loan availed by his brother from the respondent Bank. Consequent to default committed in repayment, immovable property belongs to the petitioner, which was offered as security, was proceeded against under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Invoking Section 14(1), the respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and steps for dispossession is being pursued. 2. According to the petitioner the loan in question was availed in the year 2008 and the repayment period will expire only in the year 2013. It is stated that, the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering the request made to permit regularisation on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amount remaining overdue, within a short time. 3. Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the loan account in question is remaining in chronic default and the amount remaining overdue for payment W.P(C) No.36596 of 2010-Y : 2 : itself will come to more than Rs.40,000/-. Under such circumstances, the respondent Bank is not favouring the request for permitting regularisation. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, it may not be justified on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings which is now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and he is not intending to pursue any statutory remedy. On the other hand a limited prayer is made to permit regularisation of the account on the basis of an offer to make payment of the amount in default within a short time. 5. Eventhough interference on merits is not warranted, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in permitting regularisation, especially in view of the fact that the repayment period will expire only in the year 2013 and also in view of the fact that the petitioner had relinquished all challenges. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to keep in abeyance all further coercive W.P(C) No.36596 of 2010-Y : 3 : steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the overdue amounts (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) in 2 (two) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before 30.4.2011, along with payment of regular monthly instalments due for the months of March and April 2011. 7. If payments of the defaulted amounts is regularised as directed above, the respondent 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, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab