JUDGMENT

This original petition was preferred challenging Ext.P4 and Ext.P5. Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 are notices issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') scheduling the security interest for sale. Petitioner also challenges the sale conducted consequent to the above referred notices.

2. The original petition was preferred at a time when the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not sitting, thereby claiming infraction of petitioner's right to have access to justice. It was also submitted that no interim orders were granted by this Court while entertaining this original petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that as per Ext.R1A judgment, the bank had taken possession of the secured asset on 05.11.2016 and the secured assets were in the possession of the bank and the total amount outstanding as on that date was Rs.44,44,298/-. In the same judgment, this Court directed that though the bank will be entitled to proceed in accordance with law, it will be open to the petitioner to settle their liabilities including through the process of one time settlement.

4. It is alleged that on 17.11.2016, the bank officials found the petitioner and his father as having broken the lock of the house and started residing in the house. Thereafter on 02.02.2017, as per Ext.R1B judgment in W.P.(C) No.1842 of 2017, this Court noticed that the petitioner had obtained an interim order, keeping in abeyance the dispossession of petitioner on payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, and the same was not complied with and the fact that bank had taken possession of the property on 05.11.2016 and thereafter the petitioner repossessed the property by force amounts to an attempt to interfere with the valid possession of the bank, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the bank and handover vacant possession of the building by 16.02.2017. W.A. No.825 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was also dismissed as infructuous. It is further stated that though there were repeated attempts to sell the security interests, there were no bidders and finally the bank itself submitted its tender and by proceedings dated 07.06.2021, the sale was confirmed in favour of the bank. The sale certificate is also produced as Ext.R1G.

5. I have heard Adv.Georgie Johny, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv.P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already preferred an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the earlier proceedings for enforcing the security interest and has even filed petitions for amending the said application for incorporating the present steps taken. Learned counsel asserts that the proceedings initiated by the bank are illegal and this Court may interfere with the same especially in view of the decision in P.Magudeeswaran v. Authorised Officer Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Coimbatore [2018 AIR CC 536 (MAD)].

7. I have considered the rival contentions. I am of the view that since the petitioner has already preferred a challenge against the steps for enforcing the security interest before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this original petition itself is not maintainable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85] as well as that of this Court in Green Valley Farms, Attapady and Another v. Syndicate Bank, Palakkad Branch and Others (2019 (5) KHC 960) govern the field. Time and again courts have held that the remedy for a borrower, challenging the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act remains by approaching the Tribunal constituted for that purpose. Since the petitioner's challenge is against the enforcement of the security interest, the remedy lies before the Tribunal.

Hence this original petition is dismissed without prejudice t