When alternative statutory remedies are available, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, particularly in financial recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act, unless exceptional circumstances are established.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The appellants, who are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(DRT) No.398 of 2025, filed this intra-court appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that O.P.(DRT).

2. As per the pleadings in the original petition, the 1^st respondent availed a housing loan from the 2^nd appellant Bank, for the purpose of constructing the residential house for his daughter, the 2^nd respondent, mortgaging an extent of 3.44 Ares of property in Sy.No.516/2B of Pathanapuram Village and the respondents 2 and 3 are the sureties for the said loan transaction. The appellant Bank issued a Notice to the respondents, wherein it is stated that the amount in arrears is to be cleared before 25.05.2023, and another notice was issued to the respondents, stating that the loan was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 02.06.2023. The Bank issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘ SARFAESI Act ’ in short) and informed the respondents that they are proceeding for taking out the property and thereupon the 1^st respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19933 of 2024 and this Court by the judgment dated 04.06.2024 disposed of the matter, permitting the 1^st respondent to pay off the overdue amount in 10 instalments. Thereafter, the respondents remitted the amount as fixed by this Court towards the outstanding liability of Rs.3,30,491/-, and the entire amount was paid. Though the payment was accepted by the Bank up to 04.04.2025, thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner has issued notice stating that he has been authorised to take possession of the property based upon Ext.P3 order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, in M.C.No.760 of 2025. On receipt of the notice, the 1^st respondent filed W.P.(C)No.20089 of 2025 before this Court, and this Court did not interfere in the matter and gave liberty to the respondents to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short). On the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing S.A.No.447 of 2025 and also filed Ext.P4 interim application for stay. But the Tribunal dismissed the interim application. Challenging the said order, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P.(DRT)No.221 of 2025, and by Ext.P6 judgment dated 06.10.2025, this Court again directed the matter to be considered by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal, as per Ext.P8 order dated 10.11.2025, dismissed the S.A. and interim application for stay. With these pleadings, respondents 1 and 2 - petitioners filed O.P.(DRT)No.398 of 2025 seeking the following reliefs :

“i) To set aside Ext.P8 order dated 10.11.2025 in S.A.No.447 of 2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam;

ii) To issue direction to the respondent Bank not to proceed for taking possession of the property, on the basis of Ext.P3 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.760 of 2025.”

3. On 19.12.2025, when the O.P.(DRT) came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, which reads thus:

“The petitioners shall remit an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees