A writ petition under Article 226 is not to be entertained when an alternate remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent, who had availed financial facilities from the 1st respondent bank as a partner of M/s. National Hardwares. The petitioner is in no manner connected with the business of the said firm. The petitioner is residing in House No. 11/13 of Thodupuzha Municipality, situated in an extent of 5.06 ares of land obtained in the name of the 3rd respondent as per Sale Deed No. 2862/2001 of the S.R.O., Thodupuzha.

2. The petitioner also has a case that the said land was purchased using her own funds. Upon default in repayment, the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act , and a notice under Section 13(2) was issued, followed by Exts. P5 and P5(a), which are the notices under Section 13(4) of the Act.

3. The petitioner received the notice on 11.09.2025 and

10.11.2025. Apprehending that the respondent will initiate proceedings under Section 14 and that the petitioner may be thrown out of the house, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P5, P5(a), and P7, and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to exclude the petitioner’s residential house from the sale proceedings referred to in Exts. P5, P5(a), and P7.

4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the 3rd respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, filed a counter affidavit stating that he was a partner of the partnership firm M/s. National Hardwares from 2018 and that he retired from the partnership with effect from 31.12.2022. It is further stated that the remaining partners had agreed to have the mortgaged property released and to clear all liabilities on or before 30.06.2025.

5. The 3rd respondent has filed S.A. No. 621 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the notice issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act . No interim order of stay has been granted by the Tribunal. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act deals with applications against measures taken for recovery of secured assets and provides that any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or its authorised officer under the Act, may make an application, along with such fees as may be prescribed, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction, in the prescribed manner, within a period of forty-

five days.

6. The petitioner, though not a borrower or guarantor, contends that she is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, as she apprehends dispossession from the secured asset in which she claims a right of residence.

7. As noticed earlier, the husband of the petitioner, who is the borrower, has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing a securitisation application. The petitioner is also at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging any proceedings initiated against her by the respondents under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act .

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] has held that when an alternate and efficacious remedy is available under the statute, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to entertain a writ petition.

9. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, as an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available to her. It is made clear that the period during which the writ petition was pending before this Court s