IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22581 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAKSHMIKUTTY, D/O CHELLAMMA, KAVITHAS, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, POST BOX NO. 1667, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI. 2. TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. DEVAKI AMMA, D/O KARTHIYANI AMMA, PUTHUVELIL VEEDU, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH. ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP FOR R3 SRI. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 22581/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED ON 7-4-2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND LOCATION SKETCH. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22581 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the purchaser of a property which was mortgaged to the 1st respondent-Housing Development Finance Corporation as security for loan amounts given by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent defaulted repayment of the loan amount. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for enforcement of payment of amounts outstanding from the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is now challenging the same. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent points out that the borrower is one Smt. Vasanthakumari and the 3rd respondent is the co-borrower and they have together challenged the securitisation proceedings in W.P(C) No. 19216 of 2006, in which I had directed as follows: “3. Having heard both sides, despite the illegality committed by the petitioners, I feel that some leniency can be shown to them on conditions. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs within one month from today. The balance amount shall be paid in four equal monthly instalments starting from 1-9-2008. Every subsequent instalment shall be paid on the first working day of every succeeding month. If the petitioners pay the above amounts without default, further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. However, if the petitioner fails to pay either Rs. 2 lakhs or any of the subsequent instalments on the due dates, it would be open to the respondents to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard.” That being so, the petitioner cannot separately challenge the same W.P.C. No. 22581/08. -: 2 :- proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to settle the matter amicably with the 1st respondent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/