IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 680 of 2009(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14318/2009 Dated 26/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. A.K.PREMAKUMARI, AGED 57, W/O.LATE PR PURUSHOTHAMAN, PERINGOTTUKARAN HOUSE KORATTY EAST PO, CHIRANGARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680308. 2. P.P.RAJESH,AGED 34, S/O.PR PURUSHOTHAMAN, PERINGOTTUKARAN HOUSE KORATTY EAST PO, CHIRANGARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680308. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.P.V.PAULSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, HDFC THRISSUR BRANCH, MG ROAD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, FINANCE CORPORATION LTD HDFC HDFC HOUSE, PO BOX NO.1667, REVIPURAM JUNCTION, MG ROAD,KOCHI 682 015. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON.J ----------------------------------------- R.P.No.680 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.14318 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th September,2009 ORDER The petitioners approached this Court challenging the proceedings taken up by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, particularly the steps taken up on the basis of the orders issued by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The main contention was that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not have the power to pass orders under Section 14, as the same was vested only on the 'Metropolitan Magistrate' or the 'District Magistrate' as the case may be. Referring to the legal position made clear by a Division Bench of this Court, holding that the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate of the area is duly competent in this regard, the contention raised in this regard was negated by this court. However, considering the submission that the Petitioners were ready and willing to clear the entire liability, some breathing time was given to them and the Writ Petition was disposed of giving appropriate directions enabling the petitioners to R.P.No.680 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.14318 of 2009 2 discharge the liability by way of instalments as specified therein. 2. The petitioners have again come up by filing the present R.P stating that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is wrong and unsustainable for not satisfying the steps and procedure prescribed in law, particularly as to issuance of notice under Sections 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Act. 3. The respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit asserting in paragraph 5, that Sec.13(2) notice was issued to the petitioners as borne by Ext.R1(a). Copies of the postal acknowledgment cards have been produced as Exts.R1(b) and R1(c). It is also pointed out that prior to the issuance of this notice, Ext.R1(d) lawyer's notice was also sent to the petitioners by registered post. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is still in possession of the property. 4. Obviously, the impugned judgment was passed in view of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were ready and willing to R.P.No.680 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.14318 of 2009 3 clear the entire liability, provided some breathing time was given. It was accordingly that the coercive steps taken by respondent Bank were ordered to be kept in abeyance for the time being, enabling the petitioners to wipe off the liability by way of instalments as specified. There is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the records to sustain the review. No interference is called for. The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE ssn