IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1460 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RP.671/2011 Dated 06/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / REVIEW PETITIONER / PETITIONER -------------- ANNAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE PHILIP, AGED 47 YEARS, VEMBALIL HOUSE, ATHIKKAYAM P.O., NARANAMOOZHY, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALUVA AND BRANCH AT PAZHAVANGADI, RANNY-689 645. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER (DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER) FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.80, COLLEGE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. THOMAS P.MATHEW, S/O.P.V.MATHEW, AGED 3 4 YEARS, PANAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ATHIKKAYAM P.O., NARANAMOOZHY, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE, FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1460/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 11/07/2011 IN WP(C) NO.26635/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.1460 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with sale of appellant's property in SARFAESI proceedings. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. 3. The appellant's case is that her property proposed to be sold is house property and the 3rd respondent's property is vacant land. However, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the defaulter's property is rubber plantation and SARFAESI proceedings is not maintainable against agricultural land. He further contended that so far as recovery of debt is concerned, the creditor has the right to proceed against defaulter's property or guarantor's W.A.No.1460/2011 2 property or both simultaneously. We are in complete agreement with this argument because since SARFAESI proceedings is maintainable against guarantor's property, the appellant's property can be sold in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. However, if the appellant or the 3rd respondent arranges fund either by sale of 3rd respondent's property by themselves or otherwise, the Bank can withdraw the proceedings initiated against the appellant's property. We dismiss the Writ Appeal but with the above observation. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg