IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 W.A.No.919 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN R.P.367/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.6824 OF 2008 DATED 27/03/2008. .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------------------------- P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, CHALUNDATHU THEKKETHIL, EVOOR SOUTH, KEERIKKAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AREA MANAGER, IIIRD FLOOR, CHITTOOR TOWERS, BAKERY JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.919 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6824/2008 dated 28th February, 2008 and R.P.No.367/2008 dated 27th March, 2008 respectively. (2). The appellant herein has availed a housing loan from the respondent LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The appellant has committed default in paying the amounts due to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent has initiated proceedings against the appellant by issuing notice under Sec.13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It is at that stage, the petitioner was before this Court questioning the correctness or otherwise of the notice so issued. (3). The learned Single Judge initially has granted some time to the petitioner to pay off the amounts due to the respondent. In the review petition filed by the respondent, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant herein to pay off the entire amounts due to the bank on or before a particular date. (4). Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. (5). Smt.Mumtaz Shumsuddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instruction from her client would submit that the appellant W.A.No.919/2008 -2- shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within a week's time from today and the balance amount within 3 months from today. She also states that, if for any reason the appellant commits default in complying with the orders and directions issued by this Court, the respondent may resort to all further proceedings that is permissible under the Act. (6). Taking into consideration the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant and also taking into consideration that the appellant has borrowed certain amounts from the respondent for the purpose of construction of a house, we feel that the request of the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be granted, and if it is granted, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. (7). In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal as under: Order i). The writ appeal is disposed of. ii). The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within a week's time from today and shall pay the balance amount within three months from today. iii). If for any reason, the appellant fails to deposit the first instalment as directed by us, the respondent is at liberty to proceed to recover the entire amounts due from the appellant, in accordance with law and under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. W.A.No.919/2008 -3- Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.PADMANABHAN NAIR) JUDGE MS