J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) has culminated in Ext.P5 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. It is pointed out that despite the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by that court (Ext.P4) which indicates that the Advocate Commissioner was not able to take physical possession of the property, the learned Magistrate closed the proceedings under of the SARFAESI Act recording that since Advocate Commissioner has reported that the possession has already been taken and 'handed over to the petitioner' the petition is only to be closed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the very purpose of has been defeated as the Advocate Commissioner has clearly stated in his report that he could only take symbolic possession of the property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the challenge in this writ petition is