IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19460 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KALYANI,W/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, MAYAMBALLAM KANJIKKODE, PUTHUSSERI PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- ANDHRA BANK PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND THE CHIEF MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK, PALAKKAD BRANCH, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19460 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is a lady aged 80 years, who is allegedly residing along with her son in a property which is now being proceeded against by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The writ petition is filed challenging the sale proclamation published as per Ext.P1, scheduling auction sale of the property on 25.6.2010. According to the petitioner, the property in question belongs to her and that she has not created any mortgage with respect to the property. But it is admitted that the son of the petitioner had borrowed some amounts from Sri.P.Manikndan and for that purpose she had executed an agreement in favour of Sri.Manikandan. It is alleged that the above said Sri. Manikandan had committed fraud and a sale deed was executed transferring the property in favour of him from the name of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner is still in possession of the property and is residing therein, along with her son. 2. According to learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C).19460/10-F -2- respondent bank the petitioner is a total stranger, as far as the loan transaction is concerned. The property stands in the name of the borrower, Sri.Manikandan, who had availed an 'Over Draft facility' to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent Bank, for business purposes. It is stated that consequent to failure in repayment of the loan, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated and the property is now put to auction sale for an outstanding liability to the tune of more than Rs.5,50,000/-. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a total stranger as far as the loan transaction is concerned and that the petitioner had not challenged any proceedings initiated prior to the steps for sale, this court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is residing in the property in question, as a gesture of indulgence, an interim stay against dispossession was granted on 23.6.2010, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.1 lakh. It is stated that the petitioner had complied with the condition. Subsequently the interim order was revived and extended on 24.11.2010 subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a further sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, which is to be paid within three weeks thereof. The petitioner had filed an application seeking extension of time for compliance of the condition and by virtue of an order dt.20.12.2010 the time W.P.(C).19460/10-F -3- stipulated for payment was extended till 3.1.2011. The petitioner was already directed to implead the borrower, within three days from 20.12.2010. 4. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, it is noticed that the petitioner had filed an application seeking impleadment of the borrower. But it is conceded that the petitioner had failed to comply with the condition stipulated, inspite of the extension of time granted. However, it is noticed that the sale scheduled as per Ext.P1 notice was also not materialised. 5. Under the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition any further. However, it is made clear that it is left open to the petitioner to challenge further proceedings by invoking statutory remedies, if any available to her. 6. In the result the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedies against further coercive steps. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb