IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1876 of 2011(H) ------------------------- CMP.46/2011 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA BEEVI, W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU, THOTTINTE THEKKETHIL, MUTTOM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, ALWAYE, KERALA-683101. 2. CHEIF MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, SREE RAJA RAJESWARI BUILDINGS, CHURCH ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MUTTOM-690511. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1876 of 2011-H ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Coercive steps initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Consequent to default committed in repayment of a housing loan availed by the petitioner along with her husband, immovable property which is the secured asset, wherein the petitioner is residing with her family was proceeded against. Consequent to petition filed by the respondent Bank under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner and Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioner to handover possession of the property in question. Grievance of the petitioner is that the coercive steps are now being pursued without considering her request for granting sufficient time W.P(C) No.1876 of 2011-H 2 for payment of the entire liability. 2. Heard; counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that repayment period of the loan which was availed in the year 2000, has already been expired and there is an outstanding liability of more than Rs.4.30 lakhs. 3. Considering availability of effective alternative remedy, which the petitioner had failed to invoke, this Court was not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, dispossession was stayed subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/-. It is reported that the amount has already been paid. Counsel for the petitioner makes an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, on the basis of an undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges against the proceedings and also rights if any to invoke the statutory remedy. 4. While considering the limited prayer, I am of view W.P(C) No.1876 of 2011-H 3 that indulgence can be shown in permitting payment of the entire arrears in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding, along with interest and expenses if any due, in 8 (eight) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 28.2.2011 and on before the last day of succeeding months. 6. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//