The High Court maintains a self-imposed restraint under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies exist, especially in matters concerning the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C)No.47248 of 2025 filed this intra-

court appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the interim order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.47248 of 2025, the respondent-writ petitioner had availed a vehicle loan of ₹7,86,594/- from the appellants for the purchase of a car and had been regular in repayment of the monthly instalments. A substantial portion of the loan amount has already been repaid and, as on date, only five instalments remain outstanding. Due to sudden and serious medical emergencies affecting the respondent’s husband, who had to undergo surgery and prolonged treatment, the respondent was subjected to severe financial hardship. During the same period, the respondent herself and her minor son were also hospitalised, resulting in heavy medical expenses and temporary loss of income. The default in repayment was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred solely due to circumstances beyond the respondent’s control. Despite the respondent approaching the appellants and expressing her willingness to clear the overdue amount if granted reasonable instalment facility, the appellants initiated coercive recovery proceedings. They initiated proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in C.M.P.No.11379 of 2024, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the respondent’s vehicle. With these pleadings, the respondent filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to repay the outstanding overdue amount in 20 equal monthly instalments;

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps, including repossession and sale of the vehicle, pending repayment as permitted by this Hon’ble Court;”

3. On 08.01.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, which reads thus:

“The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent Bank and seeks time to file a statement.

2. According to the respondents, the vehicle was taken into physical possession on 19.11.2025, and the writ petition was filed on 15.12.2025. The outstanding amount as on today comes to Rs.7,37,296/-, and the overdue amount is Rs.1,24,176/-. The petitioner requests that he may be granted some time to remit the overdue amount and to take back physical possession of the vehicle.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the same and submits that, since the Bank has already taken physical possession of the vehicle and the vehicle is sought to be sold on 30.01.2026, they are not in a position to regularise the loan or to restore physical possession of the vehicle.

4. For a query put to the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the term of the loan, it is submitted that the loan term will end only in the year 2029 and the overdue amount is Rs.1,24,176/-.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the secured asset is a vehicle, I permit the petitioner to remit the overdue amount of Rs.1,24,176/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six only) in three equated monthly instalments.

6. Since the vehicle is to be sold on 30.01.2026, and to enable the petitioner to remit the overdue amount and to take physica