Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Appellant filed the writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him under the SARFAESI Act. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the appellant to discharge the liability due to the bank in 15 monthly instalments. However, the learned Single Judge did not direct the bank to return possession of the building, the possession of which was taken over by the Bank. It is aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. It is now the admitted case that the first instalment due under the judgment had already been paid.
4. At any rate, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appellant to discharge liability due to the bank in instalments. Therefore, so long as the appellant complies with that direction of the W.A.No.1712 OF 2014 : 2 :
learned Single Judge, there is no reason why the possession of the residential building should not be restored to its owner.
In such circumstances, we dispose of this appeal directing that on the appellant paying the second instalment due under the judgment, the possession of the building in question will be returned to the owner thereof. However, it is clarified that in the event any default is committed in paying the future instalments that are due under the judgment, it will be open to the bank to take possession of the building in question with the help of police and without again taking recourse to the whole proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge