JUDGEMENT

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging a resolution passed by the 1st respondent bank under the provision of Section 04 of the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No. 04 of 1990. It is common ground that the 1^st petitioner company has obtained a facility and the property in issue had been provided as collateral. In view of the default, the 1^st respondent bank has demanded a sum of Rs. 288,117,144.17 [vide P- 6(b)] and upon the failure to make payment accordingly, the 1^st respondent bank has resolved to parate execute the said mortgage property by resolution dated 18.12.2023 [vide P-11(b)].

2. According to the pleadings of the petitioner, the basis of challenging the resolution, as evident from paragraphs 14, 16, 18, 19, 24, and 25, is the discrepancy in the amounts claimed. However, when this matter was taken up for argument, there was a complete shift of this ground, and what Mr. Sandamal Rajapaksha, AAL, urged was that the 1^st petitioner company is not a ‘wilful defaulter’, which, according to him, had not been considered by the 1st respondent prior to passing the resolution. The resolution is passed under and by virtue of Section 04 of Act No. 04 of 1990. The enabling provision of the statute does not specify any such requirement or the consideration if the default or the defaulter is wilful. When there is a default and a demand has been made, the bank is entitled to resolve that such property be sold by public auction. As to whether such default was wilful or otherwise is not a consideration that the statute recognises. The petitioner did not refer to any clause of the agreement either, which provided for such a consideration. In these circumstances, it is settled law that in the guise of interpretation, a Court will not endeavour to interpolate or add fresh or new grounds or matter which such statutory provision does not provide for.

3. Section 04 of Act No. 04 of 1990 simply provides thus:

“Subject to the provisions of section 7 the Board may by resolution to be recorded in writing authorize any person specified in the resolution to sell by public auction any property mortgaged to the bank as security for any loan in respect of which default has been made in order to recover the whole of the unpaid portion of such loan, and the interest due thereon up to the date of the sale, together with the moneys and costs recoverable under section 13.”

Section 04 provides for and empowers the board of any bank to resolve and authorise any specified person to sell, by public auction, the property so mortgaged to the bank as security for a loan which such borrower has defaulted on. The only requirement to be considered is that there is a loan in respect of which a default has been made. In such circumstances, such loan, if secured by the mortgage of a property, this statute empowers the bank or the lending institution to authorise and empower the sale of such mortgaged property (security) to recover the unpaid portion of such loan, interest due, and other costs permitted to be recovered. The amount so due recovered by such resolution will include the interest and unpaid portions that has accrued up to the date of the sale of the property. The resolutions passed and procedure followed to effect parate execution is provided by statute, and the lending institutions and boards of banks are statutorily authorised to act under such statutory provision. These provisions have in effect conferred upon one party to a commercial contract or transaction the right to decide upon the default and the sum due and to authorise the sale and recovery. In the normal course of events, these are matters and powers entrusted to a judicial body. It is on this basis that the passing of the resolution and parate execution and recovery is amenable to writ.

4. The petitioner’s complaint that he is not a wilful defaulter is not a relevant consideration in passing a resolution. What is relevant is the fact of there being a d