IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2281 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSE EVUGIN,S/O.JOSEPH,CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR,KOTTAYAM-686 631. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,PALA BRANCH,PALA,KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN-686 575. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2281 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 sale notice issued in respect of the property, over which security interest is stated as created in favour of the respondent- Bank. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property was not the subject matter of mortgage and that the respondents are not at all justified in proceeding against the property in any manner. Various infirmities, legal and factual, are also raised in the Writ Petition in support of the contentions. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the loan transaction was of the year 2000 and since the petitioner proved himself to be a chronic defaulter (being a guarantor), there was no other alternative for the Bank, but to proceed against the property, in accordance with law. The possession was taken in the year 2005, which has not been challenged from the part of the petitioner till date. Subsequently, O.A. No.359 of 2004 was filed before the DRT, W.P.(C) No. 2281 OF 2010 2 Ernakulam, wherein the petitioner has filed a written statement. 3. According to the respondents, a sum of Rs. One crore is still to be cleared in respect of the loan transaction. The learned Counsel for the Bank further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved of the sale notice, the remedy available to the petitioner is by filing S.A. before the DRT and no interference is possible by way of Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the rival submissions and also taking note of the necessity to have evidence, this Court does not intend to assume the role of a fact finding agency. As such interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the DRT. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk