IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12708 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALLIYAMMA, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. LATE KRISHNAN, KILIKKODAN HOUSE, PALLISSERY DESOM, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR. 2. T.V. FRANCIS, S/O. VAREED, THANDASSERY HOUSE, CHERPU.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. STANDING COUNSEL MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12708 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the sale of her property in execution of an award by the first respondent. The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.1,35,000/- from the first respondent bank by mortgaging her property. However, repayment of the loan was defaulted by her. Therefore, the bank filed ARC No.1086/2003 before the Joint Registrar and obtained an award against the petitioner. In execution of the award, E.P. No. 251/2005 was filed by the bank. As per orders in the execution petition, the property of the petitioner was sold in public auction on 20.11.2008. The sale was confirmed on 9.2.2010 as per Ext.P2 proceedings. Thereafter, a sale certificate has also been issued to the successful bidder, the second respondent on 18.3.2010. 2. It is long thereafter, on 8.4.2010 that this writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to eject the petitioner from the property that was sold. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was misled by some politicians who assured her that the matter would be set right and WPC No.12708/2010 2 thus, she was prevented even from taking recourse to the statutory remedies to set aside the sale. 3. It is pointed out by Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the petitioner had not even submitted objections to the confirmation of the sale and therefore the sale has been confirmed without any objection. At this length of time, it is pointed out that the sale that has become final, cannot be challenged. 4. I notice that the petitioner has not at all been vigilant in pursuing her statutory remedies. Thus, the remedies available to her to set aside the sale have all become barred by passage of time. The petitioner does not have any right to seek a writ of mandamus against her ejection from the property after having slept over her rights. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE ) vps WPC No.12708/2010 3 WPC No.12708/2010 4