IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19978 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SHANTHAKUMARI AMMA, D/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, THEREZHATH KALLAT VEEDU, NORTH GATE, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM. 2. JAYASREE, D/O.SHANTHAKUMARI AMMA, THEREZHATH KALLAT VEEDU, NORTH GATE, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM. BY ADVS. MR.T.J.MICHAEL, MR.P.NOOR ZAMEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. MR.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, U.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19978 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, for realization of the amount due in respect of the loan transaction. The case projected in the Writ Petition is that, the petitioners who are allegedly co-owners of the property have not created any mortgage or other encumbrance in favour of anybody including the Bank and that they have been taken aback when the notice in respect of the coercive proceedings was served upon them, which compelled them to approach this Court. 2. The respondent Bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit, pointing out the sequence of events and asserting that the petitioners cannot simply plead ignorance over the transaction. It is also brought to light that the property concerned herein was offered, creating security interest over the same by depositing the title deed on 1.9.92 and the necessary proceedings were executed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioners. Ext. R1 is the receipt in respect of deposit of title deeds. Subsequently, the Bank filed O.S. 295/1993 before the Sub Court, Kollam which was also decreed . Thereafter pursuant to the further steps for getting the decree executed, Ext. R2 recovery WP (C) No. 19978 of 2009 : 2 : certificate was issued. The learned counsel for the Bank points out that the item number '44' mentioned in Ext. R2 recovery certificate is the particular property involved herein and submits that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioners do not deserve any consideration at all. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the actual facts and figures were not known to the parties and that they simply chose to believe the words of the power holder and nothing more. The learned counsel also submits that, since nobody else had entered appearance before the Civil Court as well as the DRT, the actual position could not be unearthed earlier. The learned counsel seeks for permission of this Court to withdraw the matter. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the course of events pursued by the petitioners cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. However, considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court grants permission to withdraw the matter and accordingly it is dismissed as withdrawn. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd