The High Court must not entertain writ petitions regarding SARFAESI actions without the petitioner first pursuing statutory remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as mandated under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.45979 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 08.12.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein (appellants herein), namely, the Authorised Officer of South Indian Bank Ltd. and the Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Alappuzha Branch, to grant time till 31.03.2026 to the petitioner to clear off his liability in the loan accounts with the Bank. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of notice dated 14.08.2024 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha in M.C.No.434 of 2024, a petition filed by South Indian Bank Ltd., the secured creditor, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act ), seeking assistance in taking possession of the secured asset. The petitioner along with his wife had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.18164 of 2024 aggrieved by the coercive steps initiated by the bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in respect of various facilities availed for the proprietorship concern M/s.Oscar Publishing House as well as housing loans availed by his wife from Convent Square Branch of South Indian Bank Ltd. at Alappuzha. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 23.05.2024, whereby they were directed to remit the outstanding amount of Rs.1,25,58,646.12, as on 20.05.2024, in six consecutive and equal monthly installments, along with accruing interest and other bank charges and the first installment payable on or before 15.06.2024. In Ext.P2 judgment, it was made clear that if the petitioners therein commit a single default in making payment, as directed above, the respondents therein will be at liberty to continue with the coercive proceedings against them, in accordance with law. Exts.P3 to P7 receipts would show that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.18164 of 2024, paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.11.2024, Rs.9,00,000/- on 11.12.2024, Rs.8,00,000/- on 07.07.2025, Rs.8,00,000/- on 29.08.2025 and Rs.7,00,000/- on 30.08.2025, amounting to a total sum of Rs.37,00,000/-. After committing default in payment of the outstanding amount in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 10 of Ext.P2 judgment, the appellant-petitioner, who was the 1^st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18164 of 2024, has chosen to file W.P.(C)No.45979 of 2025 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to grant him time till 31.03.2026 to clear off his liability in the loan accounts with the Bank.

2. In W.P.(C)No.45979 of 2025, the respondents (appellants herein) have filed a counter affidavit dated 06.12.2025, opposing the relief sought for, producing therewith Ext.R1(a) letter dated 20.06.2025, whereby One Time Settlement (OTS) facility was extended by the Bank, based on the request dated 10.06.2025 made by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.18164 of 2024.

3. On 08.12.2025, when W.P.(C)No.45979 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge disposed of the same with the directions contained in paragraph 5 of that judgment. Paragraphs 4, 5 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“4. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

5. Since the limited relief of the petitioner is only to allow him to approach the Debts