A failure to comply with tribunal conditions negates entitlement to relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026)

The 1^st petitioner as borrower and the 2^nd petitioner, as one of the guarantors, availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the 1^st respondent bank in the year 2017. The loan was secured by creating a mortgage over the immovable properties having an extent of 08.76 Ares comprised in Re.Sy. Nos.105/12-1 and 320/7-1 of Kulanada Village, Kozhenchery Taluk, Pathanamthitta District.

2. The 2^nd respondent issued a notice dated

17.01.2024 to the 1^st petitioner stating that the mortgaged property will be taken possession by the bank. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.8209/2024, and this Court by judgment dated 18.03.2024, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to remit Rs.3 lakhs on or before 27.03.02024 and the balance in 10 equal monthly instalments.

3. When there was default in the payment as ordered in the judgment, the respondent bank filed M.C. No.254/2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Pathanamthitta, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , and the learned Magistrate has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioner filed S.A. No.667/2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. An application for stay, moved as I.A. No.3948/2025, which was allowed on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.6,08,211.60 on or before 20.11.2025 and the balance in instalments on or before 18.12.2025.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time, which was allowed as per Ext.P5, extending the time till 18.12.2025. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount ordered even within the extended time granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Ext.P5.

5. The prayer in the present original petition is to set aside Ext.P5 and to grant sufficient time to comply with Ext.P3 order. When the Debts Recovery Tribunal exercised its discretion and granted interim relief on condition of deposit, which was subsequently extended till 18.12.2025, and the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot grant any relief.

The petitioner has not honoured the directions issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, no indulgence is warranted and the original petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-