IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13382 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREELATHA C.K., W/O. SAJEEVAN, SIVASHYLAM, PALLIPPURATHUSSERY P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, VAIKOM BRANCH. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VAIKOM BRANCH. 3. REJI K.V., KIZHAKKETHOMPARAYIL, T.V.PURAM P.O., VAIKOM. BY STANDING COUNSEL Mr.K.S.DILIP FOR SBT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 13382 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent Bank for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner, in respect of a housing loan availed by her husband from the Bank. The property concerned herein is only 3 cents, where the petitioner, along with her husband, has put up a house, after availing the loan. However, because of some unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not effect the repayment which made the Bank to proceed with coercive steps under the SARFEASI Act, which in turn is subjected to challenge . 2. In the course of proceedings, it is said that the property was subjected to auction sale and that the highest bid offered by the third respondent was accepted, who remitted a portion of the amount as stipulated under the statute. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition; whereby confirmation of the sale was ordered to be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the petitioner cleared the entire outstanding liability to the respondent Bank, as conceded from the part of the Bank through their counsel. WPC NO.13382/2009 2 3. Despite serving notice to the third respondent, he has not chosen to appear before the Court nor has filed any counter affidavit. In view of the admitted fact that, the entire liability has been wiped off by the petitioner, before conformation of the sale, the respondent bank is to return all the 'title deeds' to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the amount collected from the third respondent is liable to be returned, in such manner and to such extent, as prescribed. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc