JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. 1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4550 of 2024, dissatisfied by the judgment dated 27.11.2024, passed in that writ petition, whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Bank on or before 20.01.2025 and further directing that if the appellants make the payment as directed, both the loan accounts of the appellants shall be closed and the Bank shall issue No Due Certificate to the appellants and will hand over the title documents of secured assets. 2. According to the appellants, the 1 st appellant is engaged in the business of selling pooja items, and the 2 nd appellant is a Government Employee, who is working as Librarian at Ayurveda College, Kannur. The 1 st appellant availed a loan of Rs.9,75,000/- and the 2 nd appellant availed an overdraft facility loan, renewable every year, of Rs.16,00,000/- from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pallickathodu Branch in the year 2016 for the purpose of development of business and construction of their house. The 1 st appellant is the guarantor to the loan availed by the 2 nd appellant, and he had created equitable mortgage of 76.80 Ares of land and building thereon in Sy.No.64/5 of Koovoppadam Village, Kottayam Taluk as security for repayment of the said loan facilities. Due to non-payment of the loan instalments, the Bank classified the loans as non-performing asset (‘NPA’ in short). Thereafter, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) and the appellants were issued with Exts.P1 and P2 notices dated 14.12.2021 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Followed by Exts.P1 and P2 notices, the Bank issued Exts.P3 and P4 possession notices dated 05.03.2022. The appellants then filed W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022 before this Court and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.03.2022, this Court disposed of that writ petition. Paragraph 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “5. Followed by Exts.P1 and P2 notices, the Bank issued Exts.P3 and P4 possession notices dated 05.03.2022. The appellants then filed W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022 before this Court and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.03.2022, this Court disposed of that writ petition. Paragraph 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “5. On a consideration of the circumstances and the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that petitioners can be granted an opportunity to repay the overdue amount under the first loan amounting to Rs.19,00,348/- and the outstanding amount under the cash credit facility of Rs.31,54,704/- together in twenty instalments on the following conditions: i. The loan liability under both accounts shall be repaid in twenty equated monthly instalments along with the regular EMIs of the liability under the personal loan. ii. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 18.04.2022 and the remaining on the 18 th day of every succeeding months. iii. Once the overdue amount of Rs.19,00,348/- due under the personal loan is cleared, the said account shall be regularised. iv. In the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. v. In order to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above.” 3. The appellants contend that the repayment facility granted by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment is equivalent to a decree granting instalments, whereby the decree debt is allowed to be discharged in instalments. There is merger of the liability, which gets crystallised in the decree, and the original cause of action vanishes. The appellants further plead that they repaid the loan liability under both accounts in 20 equated monthly instalments along with regular EMIs of the liability. But the 1 st respondent sent Exts.P6 and P7 notices dated 12.10.2023 to the appellants claiming that the 1 st appellant is liable to pay Rs.4,25,000/- + interest and Rs.59,708/- aggregating a total sum of Rs.4,84,708/-and the 2 nd appellant is liable to pay Rs.8,75,068/-. Subsequent to Exts.P6 and P7 notices, the Bank received 19 th and 20 th instalments from the appellants on 09.11.2023 and 22.11.2023. Thus, the 1 st appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and the 2 nd appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.31,54,700/- to the Bank. Subsequent to Exts.P6 and P7 notices, the Bank received 19 th and 20 th instalments from the appellants on 09.11.2023 and 22.11.2023. Thus, the 1 st appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and the 2 nd appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.31,54,700/- to the Bank. Thereafter, the appellants submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 27.12.2023 to the Bank to treat the loan accounts as closed. However, the Bank refused to accept the same, and hence, the appellants filed W.P.(C)No.4550 of 2024, which resulted in the impugned judgment. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as under: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate, writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit–P6 and Exhibit–P7 and quash the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate, writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent/Bank to return the documents of title with other documents of the Petitioners property.” 4. In the writ petition, on behalf of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed a statement dated 27.06.2024, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) copy of Statement of Account pertaining to the appellants. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that statement read thus: “2. It is submitted that; the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court earlier in the year 2022 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8289 of 2022 and the same was disposed by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 18.02.2022. The petitioners had availed two different loan accounts namely i. personal loan and ii. Cash credit facility. The over due under the personal loan was Rs. 19,00,348/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Three Hundred and Forty-Eight Only) and the outstanding under the cash credit facility was Rs. 31,54,704/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakh Fifty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) and this Hon’ble Court grant 20 equated installments along with the regular EMIs of the liability under the personal loan and directed the bank to regularize the cash credit facility availed by the petitioners once the overdue amount of Rs. 19,00,348/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Three Hundred and Forty Eight Only) is cleared further this Hon’ble Court also observed that, in the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 3. 19,00,348/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Three Hundred and Forty Eight Only) is cleared further this Hon’ble Court also observed that, in the event of default of any one instalment, the respondent bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law. 3. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioners have cleared their overdue in personal loan account and in cash credit facility in 20 equated monthly installments without fail but, the petitioner has failed in paying the regular EMI’s along with the overdue. Thus, the respondents were constrained to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioners. True copy of the statement of account pertaining to the petitioners is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a) 4. It is submitted that, as on 25.06.2024 the over due in the 1 st petitioner’s loan account (Loan No. 1324 6035 7000 054) is Rs. 2,19,719/- (Rupees Two Lakh Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen Only) + miscellaneous expenses and the over due in the 2 nd petitioner’s cash credit facility is Rs.4,48,251/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-One Only) + miscellaneous expenses.” 5. Subsequently, the respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 29.08.2024, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. It is submitted that the petitioners have remitted only the overdue amount of Rs.19,00,348/- in the Ordinary loan account and the outstanding amount under the cash credit facility of Rs.31,54,704/- in twenty instalments. The petitioners have not paid the regular EMIs in the ordinary loan and the interest accrued in the Cash Credit Account. It is submitted that it is the liability of the petitioners to remit balance EMIs in the ordinary loan and accrued interest in the Cash Credit account up to the date of closing of both loans. 4. It is submitted that the period of ordinary loan sanctioned to first petitioner has expired on 22.09.2022. The overdue under ordinary loan account of the first petitioner as on 31.07.2024 is Rs. 2,23,238/-. The above amount is the balance loan instalments for the period from February 2022 to September 2022 and overdue interest charged in the ordinary loan account from February 2022 to July 2024. The overdue under ordinary loan account of the first petitioner as on 31.07.2024 is Rs. 2,23,238/-. The above amount is the balance loan instalments for the period from February 2022 to September 2022 and overdue interest charged in the ordinary loan account from February 2022 to July 2024. True copy of the statement evidencing the pending loan installments for the period from February 2022 to September 2022 and overdue interest charged in the ordinary loan account from February 2022 to July 2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit – R1(b). 5. It is submitted that the second petitioner has remitted the outstanding amount of Rs.31,54,704/- in the Cash Credit account in twenty instalments as allowed by the court. The above amount includes interest accrued in to the cash credit account for the period up to January 2022 only. The second petitioner is liable to pay interest accrued in the Cash Credit account for the period from February 2022 till closure of the Cash Credit account, which has not been remitted. Interest accrued on Cash Credit account for the period from February 2022 to July 2024 comes to Rs.4,58,774/- as on 31.07.2024. The true copy of the statement evidencing the interest accrued in the Cash Credit facility for the period from February 2022 to July 2024 is produce herewith and marked as Exhibit - R1(c) 6. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 6,82,012/- (Rupees Six lakh eighty- two thousand and twelve only) is still outstanding as dues from the petitioners as on 31.07.2024, which the petitioners are legally liable to pay to the respondent bank with further interest and charges till payment in full.” 6. After hearing both sides and verifying the materials on record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as stated above. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “2. There is some dispute regarding the compliance of the judgment dated 18.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No.8289/2022, by the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the balance outstanding amount in respect of the two loan accounts is Rs.6,82,012/-. She further submits that if the petitioners make lump sum payment of Rs.4,00,000/- within two months, the petitioners’ loan accounts shall be closed, and the title documents of the secured asset shall be handed over to the petitioners. 4. She further submits that if the petitioners make lump sum payment of Rs.4,00,000/- within two months, the petitioners’ loan accounts shall be closed, and the title documents of the secured asset shall be handed over to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall pay Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 20.01.2025. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the bank, on or before 20.01.2025. If the petitioners make the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 20.01.2025, both loan accounts of the petitioners shall be closed, and the bank shall issue no due certificate to the petitioner and will hand over title documents of the secured asset. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of.” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have cleared the due amount in instalments as directed in Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.03.2022. Hence, the initiation of SARFAESI proceedings against the appellants is illegal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank would submit that it is true that the appellants have paid 20 equated monthly instalments as directed in Ext.P5 judgment. However, they did not make the payment of the regular EMIs as directed. Hence, the Bank continued with the SARFAESI proceedings. 10. It is trite that, except in exceptional circumstances, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable. 11. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. 2018 (1) KHC 786 , the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a writ petition only under exceptional circumstances and that it is a self-imposed restraint by the High Court. 11. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. 2018 (1) KHC 786 , the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a writ petition only under exceptional circumstances and that it is a self-imposed restraint by the High Court. The four exceptional circumstances such as, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, were re iterated in paragraph 6 of the said judgment by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal , (2014) 1 SCC 603. 12. This position was reiterated by the Apex Court in M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip , 2023 (4) KLT 29 and after discussing the various judgments on the point as well as the circumstances in which the High Court can interfere within matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, held as under: “Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi - judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” (Underline supplied) 13. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” (Underline supplied) 13. In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank , 2024 (3) KHC (SN) 3 the Apex Court held that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in matters arising out of RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. 14. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Jasmin K. v. State Bank of India , 2024 (3) KHC 266 reiterated the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 15. In LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v. Nagson and Company , 2025 KHC OnLine 7406 , the Apex Court noticed that despite the said Court in a series of judgments – United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon , (2010) 8 SCC 110 being one among them – having cautioned the High Courts to exercise writ jurisdiction judiciously while entertaining challenges to the actions by secured creditors under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce their security interest in view of the scheme, purpose and object of the enactment, some of the High Courts look the other way and grant interim relief on the mere asking. The Apex Court still come across cases where, without just and sufficient reason being recorded, proceedings taken by secured creditors have been interdicted by the High Courts, with or without imposition of conditions, amounting to great disservice of institutional credibility. 16. The appellants availed the loans mentioned in the writ petition from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pallickathodu Branch, and the loans were converted into NPA due to default in repayment of the same. When the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the appellants approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.03.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of that writ petition, granting instalment facility to the appellants. Along with 20 equated monthly instalments, the appellants were directed to pay regular EMIs of the liability under the personal loan also. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.03.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of that writ petition, granting instalment facility to the appellants. Along with 20 equated monthly instalments, the appellants were directed to pay regular EMIs of the liability under the personal loan also. According to the respondents, the appellants did not clear the regular monthly EMIs and hence, the Bank proceeded further for recovery of the balance amount, which was submitted as Rs.6,82,012/- before the learned Single Judge while considering W.P.(C)No.4550 of 2024. The learned counsel for the Bank agreed to close the loan if the appellants make a lump sum payment of Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 20.01.2025. The learned counsel for the appellants also agreed to the same. It is thereafter, the appellants came up with the instant appeal. 17. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that the loans of the appellants were converted into NPA, and the respondents proceeded against the secured asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. If the appellants have any grievance against the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, then the remedy available to them is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants have not made out any special circumstances to approach this Court with the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, before which the statutory remedy is provided to the appellants. 18. Having considered the pleadings and material on record and the submission made at the Bar in the light of judgments referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.