IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37676 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.K.SUNILKUMAR, S/O.KAMALAMMA, ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEED, AMOTTUKONAM, CHAIKKOTTUKONAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE CHIEF I MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 37676 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court earlier, challenging the steps taken by the respondent bank invoking the provisions under the SARFAESI Act, when the petitioner was turned to be a defaulter in satisfying the due amount under the Housing Loan availed from the respondent- Bank. 2. After hearing both the sides, this Court had passed Ext. P3 verdict, whereby the overdue amount was ordered to be cleared by way of 'six' equal monthly installments, that was to be commenced from 10th September 2009, simultaneously making it clear that it was in addition to the liability of the petitioner to effect regular E.M.Is as well; and also adding a default clause enabling the respondent Bank to proceed with further steps in case of any failure on the part of the petitioner . The petitioner has approached this Court again with this Writ Petition, stating W.P(C) No. 37676 OF 2009 2 that because of some unforeseen circumstances, the liability could not be cleared in toto as ordered and that the petitioner has already approached the respondent Bank by filing Ext. P6 representation for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank, with reference to the statement filed, submits that a huge amount is still due towards 'overdues' in respect of the defaulted installments and that the petitioner did not take any earnest effort to avail the benefit of Ext.P3 judgment to have the loan account regularized . It is also stated that there is absolutely no fault on the part of the Bank in proceeding with the steps under the SARFAESI Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the steps taken by the petitioner did not become fruitful because of some unforeseen circumstances and that some other alternate arrangements are being made to honour the commitment and it is accordingly, that the petitioner has approached the Bank by filing Ext. P6. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances , this Court finds that the matter has already become final as per Ext. P3 W.P(C) No. 37676 OF 2009 3 and no more positive interference is possible in this Writ Petition. However, considering the fact that the only prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, this Court observes that the verdict already passed by this Court , as borne by Ext.P3 need note be taken as a bar, if the respondent Bank so considers and intends to provide any helping hand to the petitioner, to the possible extent. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk