In matters involving the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not intervene through writ petitions where appropriate statutory remedies exist, and full material disclosure is essential to maintaining judicial integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant-petitioner has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2025, which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent South Indian Bank Ltd., represented by its Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, not to take any steps for possession or boundary demarcation with respect to plaint A schedule property in O.S.No.180 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda till the said suit is disposed of by that court. In the writ petition, on behalf of the respondent Bank, a counter affidavit dated 16.06.2025 was placed on record, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(h) documents. By the judgment dated 19.06.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2025 with the directions contained in paragraph 4 of that judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the judgment dated 19.06.2025 read thus;

‘2. The petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs, relies on Ext.P5, the injunction order passed by the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, which reads as follows:-

“The respondent/defendant is restrained from unilaterally or arbitrarily fixing the boundary of the plaint A and B schedule property, until further orders. But it is made clear that this order will not in any way stand in the way of the respondent in proceeding against the plaint B schedule property under the SARFAESI Act .”

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank submits that even going by the sketch produced by the petitioner, the secured asset, the building is situated in plaint B scheduled property, which is not interdicted in any manner by Ext.P5 order. That apart, if it is a case of the petitioner that the bank is proceeding in violation of the order of injunction granted through Ext.P5, the remedy is to file an appropriate application before the same court which passed the order.

4. The actions of the secured creditor against the property in Plaint B schedule cannot be affected by Ext.P5 order at all. Over and above, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the secured creditor, the remedy lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act , 2002. No further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.’

2. This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to condone the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 08.08.2025.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

4. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the judgment dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2025.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- petitioner would contend that when the boundary dispute between plaint A and B schedule properties in O.S.No.180 of 2023 is sub judice before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, any action by the respondent Bank to take possession of the secured asset or to fix the boundary between the said properties will impinge the civil rights of the appellant, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.180 of 2023. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that by Ext.P5 order dated 08.08.2024 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.180 of