IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30524 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHA SADANANDAN, W/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHUKKASSRY HOUSE ,POTTORE PO THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 581. BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,REP;BY CHIEF MANAGER 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR. BY SC SRI.R.S KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO.2019/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) Nos.30524 of 2009 & 2019 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in the former case had availed a loan from the respondent Bank creating security interest over the property in question. When the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, the Bank resorted to appropriate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which was sought to be challenged by filing the said writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the coercive steps were intercepted as per order dated 6.11.2009 directing the petitioner in the said case to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on or before 16.11.2009. Subsequently, on 23.11.2009, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the condition imposed by this Court was not satisfied, under which circumstance, it was made clear by this Court that, if the condition was not satisfied, the Bank was very much free to proceed with further steps. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the W.P (C) Nos.30524 of 2009 & 2019 of 2010 2 petitioner therein that the condition is yet to the satisfied. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that this is not a fit case where the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised. Accordingly, interference is declined and the W.P(C) No.30524/09 is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, in accordance with law, by availing the remedy, as provided under the Statute. 3. Coming to W.P (C) No.2010 of 2010, this is a case filed by a stranger, seeking to stay the steps being pursued by the Bank to evict the petitioner from the premises in question invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. In fact, it is stated that the 2nd respondent who is the petitioner in W.P (C) No.30524 of 2009 had availed a loan from the respondent Bank. The grievance of the petitioner in the subsequent case i.e. W.P (C) No.2019 of 2010 is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale/purchase with the 2nd respondent/owner of the property, as borne by Ext.P1 for a W.P (C) Nos.30524 of 2009 & 2019 of 2010 3 total consideration of Rs. 18 lakhs and that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as the advance sale consideration. It is stated that the action being pursued by the Bank is causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. 6. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, taking note of the specific averment that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the liability of the bank, the petitioner was asked to prove the bona fides by satisfying the entire liability and to get it set off against the account of the 2nd respondent, who is the petitioner in the other case. No positive response is there, which by itself shows that the petitioner has no genuine interest or grievance. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that there is absolutely no privity of contract with the petitioner in W.P (C) No.2019 of 2010. However, it is also added that, if there is consensus between the petitioner in W.P (C) No.2019 of 2010 and the 2nd respondent, who is the actual owner of the property and the entire liability towards the bank is cleared, the Bank does not have any W.P (C) Nos.30524 of 2009 & 2019 of 2010 4 objection to give effect to Ext.P1 agreement for sale. In the above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for and W.P (C) No.2019 of 2010 also stands dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) Nos.30524 of 2009 & 2019 of 2010 5