The High Court emphasized the necessity for statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act rather than invoking Article 226, affirming that approaches must follow prescribed legal frameworks in financial recovery matters.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The respondent in W.P.(C)No.46815 of 2025 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the interim order dated 16.12.2025 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 Union Bank of India, the respondent therein, to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire outstanding liability in respect of an agricultural loan for Rs.1,50,000/-, availed from the Attingal Branch of the said Bank, after creating equitable mortgage of 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.9/9-B at Edacode Village in Chirayinkeezu Taluk, in 20 monthly installments.

2. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of order dated 19.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in M.C.No.1592 of 2025, in a proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , (SARFAESI Act) seeking assistance of the Court to take possession of the secured asset. Ext.P2 is a copy of notice dated 29.11.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.1592 of 2025 (wrongly dated as 29.12.2025).

3. In W.P.(C)No.46815 of 2025, the respondent Bank filed a counter affidavit dated 15.12.2025, producing therewith Ext.R1(a) sale certificate dated 15.09.2025. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that, due to the default in repayment of the loan amount and interest, the account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.12.2017. In the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the secured asset was sold on 13.06.2025, and Ext.R1(a) sale certificate dated 15.09.2025 was issued. Thereafter, the Bank obtained Ext.P1 order dated 19.11.2025 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.1592 of 2025 for physical dispossession and the Advocate Commissioner issued Ext.P2 notice dated 29.12.2025. Upon receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the respondent-petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.46815 of 2025 before this Court seeking installment facility for repayment of the loan amount together with interest. As on 30.11.2025, after giving credit to the sale price, the total amount outstanding comes to Rs.2,51,783/-, in addition to interest and cost.

4. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the respondent Bank has pointed out that the secured asset, which is covered by Ext.R1(a) sale certificate dated 15.09.2025, is lying adjacent to the residential house of the petitioner, and for ascertaining the mortgaged/sold property by metes and bounds, the Bank has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

5. It is after the filing of the counter affidavit dated 15.12.2025 by the respondent Bank, that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 in W.P.(C) No.46815 of 2025, which reads thus;

“The petitioner shall remit an amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) within a period of one month from today. It is also brought to notice that part of the secured assets were sold on 13.06.2025, and an amount of Rs.1,56,550/- is the sale amount, which has already been appropriated to the loan account. The amount is now shown as Rs.2,51,783/- after deducting the sale amount. The coercive steps against the petitioner shall be deferred for a period of six weeks. It is made clear that if the payment is not ma