IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/24TH PHALGHUNA WP(C).No. 4857 of 2011 (F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- ALDI PREMAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTINE, L.A 34/704, LENTHAPARAMBIL BEENA, ANJUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY KOCHI -24. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. UCO BANK LTD., MATTANCHERRY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY, CHIEF MANAGER MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK LTD., MATTANCHERY, KOCHI -2. 3. SREEKUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. S.K. STORES, PENTA ESTATE JANATHA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025. R,R1-2 BY SRI.PEARSON S.FERNANDEZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4857 of 2011 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.21.12.2009 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD.8.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.4857 of 2011-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an auction purchaser of an immovable property having an extent of 14.702 cents along with a residential building contained therein, situated in Re-Survey No.79/16 in Block No.4 of Cheranellur Village in Kanayannur Taluk. The sale was conducted by respondents 1 and 2 in a proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) against the 3rd respondent, who had defaulted repayment of a loan availed. It is conceded by both parties that the auction sale was conducted on 21.12.2009 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.28,01,001/-. It is further conceded that Ext.P2 sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 8.1.2010 and possession of the property in question was handed over to the petitioner. But registration of the sale deed was not executed and the W.P(C) No.4857 of 2011-F : 2 : petitioner is seeking a direction in this writ petition to that effect. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that, after the sale, the 3rd respondent had obtained an interim order from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam on 12.1.2010, in I.A.No.94/2010 in S.A. No.84/2009 directing to maintain status quo. It is stated that, inspite of the respondent Bank filed written statement, the Tribunal had not disposed of the securitisation application and the interim order remained in force. It is further stated that there is an order of attachment issued in O.S.No.907/2009 by the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam in a suit filed by M.A.Varghese against the 3rd respondent. It is stated that, on intervention of respondents 1 and 2 the attachment was lifted through order dt.15.10.2010. Thereafter the Bank came to know that there exist yet another attachment issued by the District Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.622/2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P(C) No.4857 of 2011-F : 3 : the 3rd respondent had in fact moved the securitisation application much prior to the date of sale and he had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in an interim order issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also contended that the civil suits in question are filed as part of collusive attempts of the 3rd respondent to see that the execution of sale deed is not conducted. In fact all such orders of attachment are issued only after the Bank had issued the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and such orders of attachment are unsustainable in view of the fact that the 3rd respondent is not holding title over the property. 4. Considering the submissions made on both sides, I am of the view that as long as there exist valid orders issued from the Debt Recovery Tribunal or from the civil courts, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be blamed for non- execution of the registration of the sale deed. However, it is for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Civil Courts about the factual position and to seek W.P(C) No.4857 of 2011-F : 4 : appropriate orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has already got impleaded before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and a petition for advancing the case has already been filed and the same is posted to 22.3.2011. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps to get the interim order vacated and to execute registration of the sale deed, at the earliest. Needless to say that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam will consider application if any filed either by the petitioner or by respondents 1 and 2 to advance posting of the securitization application or for vacating the interim relief, on an early basis, and a decision thereof shall be taken at the earliest possible. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab