IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3705 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- ROSY JOSE, WIFE OF JOSE K.THOMAS, PATHASSERY HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KAITHAMUKKU BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SON OF RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SHARADA LAYAM, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC FOR R1 - SRI. R.S. KALKURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ========================= WRIT PETITION NO.3705 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT The second respondent had mortgaged three items of property to the first respondent Bank and this included two cents of land, in respect of which, he had entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner. Contending that the agreement was not performed, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement as O.S.322/2002 in which the second respondent remained ex-parte. Based on the decree, he obtained a sale certificate from the Court. 2. Subsequently the Bank initiated proceedings before the DRT as O.A.51/2005. The petitioner got herself impleaded as an additional respondent in the O.A. At a subsequent stage of the proceedings, she was declared ex-parte. It is stated that the Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security interest Act and at that stage, this writ petition has been filed challenging these proceedings. 3. The fact remains that this item of property is also W.P.(C)3705/2008 2 mortgaged to the Bank and if that be so, even if the petitioner has acquired title to the property, that will not in any case prejudicially affect the right of the Bank to enforce the mortgage. However, on equitable consideration, I directed the standing counsel for the Bank as to whether it was possible to proceed against the other two items of property, excluding the property held by the petitioner and realise their dues. Upon instructions, the standing counsel submitted before me that the other two items of properties are one having an extent of 11 cents and other 7 cents. The plot of 11 cents is in a village area and according to the Bank that will not fetch any appreciable price to liquidate the liability. Insofar as the other 7 cents is concerned, it is in the possession of the tenant and therefore the bank submits that there are practical difficulties. 4. The property being a mortgaged one, it is for the Bank to decide which one is to be proceeded against. In its discretion the Bank has decided to proceed against the property in question. That decision of the Bank cannot be interfered with by this Court, especially in the absence of any malafides in the W.P.(C)3705/2008 3 matter. In any case, the Bank cannot be faulted for the action taken by it. The writ petition fails. Dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/ css/