Writ jurisdiction is limited in recovery cases, requiring exceptional circumstances for intervention under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C)No.45757 of 2025 filed this intra-

court appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.45757 of 2025, the respondent had availed a housing loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- and SIB décor loan of Rs.2.37 lakhs from the Kallara Branch of South Indian Bank, Kottayam District, with loan account number as 0210652000001294 by signing a mortgage deed for the purpose of construction of their house. The 1^st appellant is the Branch Manager of Kallara Branch, South Indian Bank, Kottayam District and the 2^nd appellant is the Senior Manager of the South Indian Bank, Regional office, Kottayam. The respondent regularly paid the loan amount on a daily repayment scheme. Due to the treatment of his mother for an unstable mental condition, he was unable to repay the loan amount in regular basis, and hence the bank had initiated recovery proceedings against the mortgaged property. The respondent thereafter approached the bank by submitting a representation on 21.11.2025 seeking extension of time for the repayment of the loan amount within a period of one year. On 28.11.2025, the bank issued Ext.P1 auction notice to the respondent stating that the sale proceedings will be initiated against the mortgaged property and the auction will be conducted on 14.01.2026. The proceedings initiated against the respondent are illegal and unsustainable. The nonpayment of the monthly loan instalments is due to certain financial stringencies beyond their control. So, they deserve sympathetic consideration and need some time to repay the amount due to the bank. If a sufficient instalment facility is granted for the overdue amount, the respondent can clear the loan. With these pleadings, the respondent filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“I) To pass an order setting aside Ext.P1 notice and all its further proceedings in the interest of justice. II) Direct the respondent bank to extend the time for repayment of the overdue amount or to permit the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in equal monthly instalments along with the regular monthly instalments and thereby permit them to regularise the loan accounts”.

3. On 18.12.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent- petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the loan account.

4. On 13.01.2026, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that judgment read thus:

“2. During the hearing, the petitioner confined the relief to an opportunity to repay the overdue amount and to obtain regularisation of the loan accounts.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent Bank that the petitioner had committed default in repayment of the loan and that the total overdue amount as on today is Rs.6,77,004/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Four only). It was further submitted that though recovery proceedings have been initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent Bank is willing to accept repayment of the overdue amount and regularise the loan accounts.

4. There was an interim order dated 18.12.2025 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which has already been complied with. This is recorded.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsels on both sides, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ peti