The High Court will not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI Act proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist and remedies under the Act have been exhausted.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3522 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants 1 and 2 availed a loan from the 3^rd respondent Bank in the year 2018, and substantial payments were affected, during the COVID period. The property, having an extent of 40 ares and 44 sq. meters, offered as security to the loan, belongs to the father of the 1^st appellant, who died on 07.05.2022. So, at present, the 1^st appellant has only a nominal right over the property. However, the Bank has now initiated recovery proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) on 30.09.2023, and it is followed by another notice in which it is stated that the property will be taken possession on 30.01.2024. Such proceedings are not permissible under law, without issuing notice to the legal heirs of the guarantor and considering their objection, which is mandatory. The appellants who have availed the loan are making all their attempts to see that the loan liability is closed in spite of the fact that no steps under the SARFAESI Act can be initiated against their property. The appellants have requested the 2^nd respondent to grant at least one year time for making arrangements to sell another item of property and clear the liability, by giving at least 50 monthly instalments. With these pleadings, the appellants filed W.P.(C) No.3522 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs;

“i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P3 and issue of certiorari quash Exts.P1 and P2 notices as illegal as it is against the statutory provisions under SARFEASI Act and is not enforceable under law;

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider Ext.P3 expressly regarding the claim of the petitioners that the property is an agricultural property and to order that exemption under Section 31 is applicable;

iii) To issue writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent not to initiate the steps stated in Ext.P1 and P2 without taking legal measures intimating the legal heirs about the initiation of proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act and not to proceed to take possession of the property till all legal heirs are issued width notice contemplated under (2)

and 13(8) etc., of the SARFAESI Act”.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2025, the learned Single Judge closed the writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the appellants to challenge the action of the secured creditor by invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Paragraphs 2, 3 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“2. An interim order was passed by this court on 29.01.2024 directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs within one month. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid.

3. Taking note of the fact that this writ petition has been pending from 27.01.2024, and even the interim order passed by this court has not been complied with, I am not inclined to extend any further indulgence to the petitioners. The remedy of the petitioners, if aggrieved by any actions of the secured creditor, is to invoke Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Without prejudice to the right to avail of the same, this writ petition is closed. The time spent on prosecuting this writ petition from 27.01.2024 till this date shall be excluded for counting the period of limitation”.

4. Being aggrieved by the non-granting of reliefs sought in the writ petition, the appellants filed the presen