IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4064 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.MUHAMMADALI, MATTUVAL HOUSE, PATHIMANGALAM, P.O.KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 571. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOZHIKODE MAIN BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOZHIKODE MAIN BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SC FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4064 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 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 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the immovable property, which is a secured asset was taken over possession by issuing Ext.P2 notice. 2. According to the petitioner, the loan was availed in the year 2004 with a repayment period of 15 years and the coercive steps were pursued without considering his request for permitting regularisation of the account, on the basis of an offer made for payment of the amounts overdue, within a short period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that, the loan account is in chronic default and there is a total outstanding of more than ` 8.36 lakhs. Even 2 W.P.(C).No.4064 of 2011 for upgrading the loan account, there is a short payment of more than ` 2.25 lakhs, is the submission. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not resorted to the remedy as provided under section 17(1), it is not proper or justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceeding. However, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also rights if any available to invoke the statutory remedy. On the other hand, limited prayer is only to permit regularisation of the account through payment of the amounts overdue, in a phased manner, within a short period. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, the limited relief sought for can be permitted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the amounts overdue for payment 3 W.P.(C).No.4064 of 2011 (defaulted monthly instalments along with interest and expenses, if any due), in 4 (four) equal monthly instalments, falling due on or before 31.3.2011 and on or before the last day of three succeeding months, along with payment of the regular monthly instalments due for the respective months. 7. If payment of amounts in default is regularised as directed above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with 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 monthly instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery, and on any such event, the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/