The petitioner, who availed a loan for Rs.8,00,000/- from the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank, in the year 2011, by mortgaging her property having an extent of 11½ cents in Sy.No.766/10B of Pallippadu Village in Karthikappally Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to grant her sufficient time to pay off the outstanding arrears in respect of the said loan account, in monthly instalments. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise loan account No.HL-131, after accepting the arrears due.

2. On 21.06.2018, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank was directed to get instructions and the matter was posted to 28.06.2018 for consideration. On that date, the learned Standing Counsel sought further time to get instructions and accordingly, the writ petition was listed to 03.07.2018 for consideration.

3. On 03.07.2018, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.11836 of 2018, under Rule 153 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971 seeking an order to accept on file, the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank.

4. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner availed a housing loan from the 1st respondent Bank (loan account No.HL-131), in the year 2011, for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- by mortgaging her property having an extent of 11½ cents in Sy.No.766/10B of Pallippadu Village in Karthikappally Taluk, with a residential building belonging to the petitioner and her husband. The tenure of the loan is 15 years, i.e., till 2026, with a monthly instalment of Rs.8,819/-. Due to financial difficulties, there occurred default in repayment of loan. The petitioner could effect repayment only till 25.05.2016 and she has remitted around Rs.4,00,000/-. When there was default, the 1st respondent Bank resorted to coercive action and took symbolic possession of the property on 18.06.2018, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'SARFAESI Act'). Immediately, the petitioner approached the respondents and requested for some time. However, they did not accede to such request and instructed the petitioner to pay off the entire amount in lump. The petitioner is ready to pay the arrears in instalments, in order to regularise the loan account. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 20.06.2018, the outstanding arrears comes to Rs.2,75,202/-. Though she had approached the respondents with a request to pay the arrears in instalments, they are not amenable for the same.

5. The first sentence in Ground A of the writ petition reads thus;

“The amount demanded by the respondents is highly exorbitant as the petitioner is not a chronic defaulter.”

6. The plea raised in the writ petition that, the petitioner is not a chronic defaulter and that, she could effect repayment till 25.05.2016, are not supported by any documents on record. The writ petition filed by the petitioner contains only the memorandum of writ petition and the supporting affidavit. No documents whatsoever have been produced along with the writ petition to show the total amount outstanding, the overdue amount, etc. in respect of the loan transaction in question and also the amount already repaid. Except the bare statement in the writ petition, no documents whatsoever have been placed on record to show that she had approached the 1st respondent Bank with a request to pay off the outstanding arrears in instalments and to regularise the loan account.

7. Admittedly, the coercive steps initiated by the 1st respondent Bank and the 2nd respondent Authorised Officer, against the property offered by the petitioner as security, are unde