The petitioner seeks review of an interim order passed by me during vacation sitting. The Writ Petition seeks to quash the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcements of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Securitisation Act') for taking over the residential property of the petitioner. The interim relief sought for was stay of all proceedings under the Securitisation Act in so far as they pertain to the petitioner's property. Under the order sought to be reviewed, the interim relief was granted imposing a condition that a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was obviously less than 25% of the total debt should be deposited.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri. V.K. Mohanan, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent, the Bank.

3. Sri. Georgekutty Mathew raised two points. The first was with reference to Section 31(g) of the Securitisation Act which according to the learned counsel exempts properties exempted under Clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 60( 1) of the Code of C