IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 10773 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- L.RAJEEVAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANA PILLAI, SRUTHI,KANDALOOR NORTH, KANDALOOR VILLAGE, KARATHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF MANAGER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KULANADA BRANCH,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,KULANADA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. ALLIAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O.BHARATHI AMMA, ANUPAMA,ERUMAKUZHI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.), SC FOR SBT SRI.SAJI VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10773 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P2, a sale notice published by the respondent Bank for sale of the properties mortgaged by the 4th respondent, a defaulter. Petitioner submits that he is a creditor of the 4th respondent and complains that the reserve price fixed by the Bank is low. Yet another complaint is that if the property in question is sold in smaller plots, that will fetch sufficient funds for liquidating the liability of the Bank. 2. On the other hand, the submission made on behalf of the respondent Bank is that the writ petition itself is collusive. It is stated that Ext.P1 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the 4th respondent where it is alleged that the 4th respondent has borrowed money from the petitioner for business purposes. 3. Irrespective of the contentions, in my view the complaint now urged before me cannot be entertained, coming from a stranger like the petitioner. If the reserve price fixed is low and if by selling of smaller portion of land, the debt of the bank can be realised, it is for the owner of WPC 10773/08 :2 : the property to raise these complaints. The 4th respondent has not chosen to raise these complaints and if that be so, the petitioner who is a stranger cannot be permitted to raise these contentions. 4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, I clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies that are available to him. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp