IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22314 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JACOB P.J.,S/O.JACOB, AGED 82 YEARS,PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDINGS, POST BOX NO.140,KOTTAYAM,REP.BY ITS MANAGER, PERUVA BRANCH. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDINGS, POST BOX NO.140,KOTTAYAM. 3. SHABU MATHEW,S/O.MATHEW VARGHESE, MANISSERIL HOUSE,PALLIKKUNNU P.O., VENNIYODE VILLAGE,VAITHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. 4. MARKOSE V.,S/O.VARKEY, KANNAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,RAY-GARDEN,PERUVA P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU-VIA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC FOR R3 SRI.BABY THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20412 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.22314/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF TITLE DEED OF SUB REGISTRY, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P2 COPY OF NOTICE FOR SALE DATED 20.2.09. P3 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 10.3.09. P4 COPY OF NOTICE DT 30.3.09. P5 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 14.4.09. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22314 & 20412 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner in WP(C) 20412/2009 had filed WP(C) 10059/2009 earlier, challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act, wherein the second petitioner in the former case (petitioner in WPC(C) 22314/2009) was subsequently impleaded as the additional second respondent. WP(C) 10059/2009 was admitted on 08.04.2009 also making clear that, the sale if conducted, shall not be confirmed for a period of 45 days, if the entire amount due to the Bank was paid by that time. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Court that, the sale had already been completed and in the said circumstance, WP(C) 10059/2009 was permitted to be withdrawn on 17.06.2009 with liberty to challenge the sale before the appropriate Forum. 2. Obviously, the second Writ Petition, i.e., 20412/2009 was filed after disposal of the earlier case, however, joining hands with the additional second respondent in the first Writ Petition (who is the second petitioner in WP(C) 20412/2009). It is true that, the interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) 10059/2009 and the subsequent disposal of the Writ Petition WPC NO.22314 & 20412/2009 2 have been referred to in paragraph 5, however, just stating that, the Writ Petition was withdrawn on 17.06.2009 with liberty to challenge the same, but omitting to mention as to the “Forum” for challenging the said proceeding. A copy of the judgment in WP(C) 10059/2009 was also not produced along with the said Writ Petition. 3. It is without any regard to the sequence of events as above, that the second petitioner in WP(C) 20412/2009 chose to approach this Court again by filing WP(C) 22314/2009, without mentioning anything as to the earlier Writ Petition filed by him, joining hands with the petitioner in WPC) 10059/2009. It is also relevant to note that, the said matter was admitted by this Court on 06.08.2009, when the petitioner therein, through the learned counsel appearing on his behalf, made this Court to believe that, the entire amount procured by virtue of the sale of the property (Rs.3,83,416/-) would be deposited by the petitioner on or before the 31st of this month and it was accordingly, that an interim stay was granted on that day. But the actual facts and figures came to light only yesterday; particularly as to the suppression of the material facts, as to filing of the earlier Writ Petition in WP(C) 20412/2009 by the petitioner in WP(C) 22314/2009 and other relevant aspects. 4. Today, the learned counsel who was appearing for the WPC NO.22314 & 20412/2009 3 petitioners in WP(C) 20412/2009 submitted that, he was not at all aware of the filing of the subsequent Writ Petition, i.e., WP(C) 22314/2009 by the second petitioner in WP(C)20412/2009 and in the said circumstance, the learned counsel has relinquished the vakkalath of both the petitioners. Sri. C.P. Peethambaran, learned counsel newly engaged by the first petitioner in WP(C) 20412/2009, submits with reference to the I.A. 10800/2009 that, the second petitioner in the said Writ Petition was having no idea to pursue the matter any further and hence that the first petitioner might be permitted to transpose the second petitioner as the additional 4th respondent; for which the said I.A. has been filed. Considering the fact that, the earlier Writ Petition filed by the said petitioner as WP(C) 10059/2009 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the sale (which was stated as complete) before the appropriate Forum, WP(C) 20412/2009 itself was not maintainable. This being the position, there is no scope for any positive orders in the present I.A. filed by the first petitioner therein. 5. As noted hereinbefore, WP(C) 22314/2009 has been filed without disclosing anything as to the earlier Writ Petition [WP(C) 20412/2009] filed by the very same petitioner, joining hands with the petitioner in WP(C) 10059/2009. This Court does not require any second thought to arrive at a finding that, there is clear suppression of material WPC NO.22314 & 20412/2009 4 facts and that the matter has to be dealt with seriously. But considering the fact that, the petitioner in WP(C)22314/2009 has already crossed the age of 80 years, this Court does not find it necessary to pursue further steps, so as to show him the proper place. However, the course and conduct being pursued by both the petitioners cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. In the said circumstance, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- each. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc