IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WA.No. 630 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6224/2010 DATED 15.3.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- V.C. MOHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, S/O. ATTAKOYA THANGAL, V.C. HOUSE, POST NADUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, PARAPPANANGADI BRANCH, PARAPPANANGADI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, IST FLOOR, SOUTHERN TRADE TOWER, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.630 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This writ appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6224 of 2010-C dated 15th March, 2010. 2. The appellant herein availed a loan from the first respondent Bank and failed to repay the instalments as agreed upon. Consequentially steps were taken by the respondents for causing sale of the mortgaged property under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. The appellant had earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition which culminated ultimately in W.A.No.64 of 2009. By the said judgment the appellant was directed to repay the amount outstanding to the Bank in certain instalments, details of W.A.No.630 of 2010 - 2 - which are not necessary for the present purpose. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge recorded a finding that the appellant could not even take advantage of the abovementioned judgment in W.A.No.64 of 2009 and pay the amount in accordance with the directions of this Court. 4. In the abovementioned background, the property of the appellant was auctioned on 20th April, 2009 and the sale was registered on 23rd December, 2009. 5. The instant writ petition was filed on 22nd February, 2010 with two innocuous prayers which read as follows: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent bank to return the documents belonging to the petitioner, which is deposited by the petitioner as a security to the loan number 30050719410 availed by him. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent bank to consider and pass appropriate W.A.No.630 of 2010 - 3 - orders on Ext.P9 representation filed by the petitioner before the bank.” 6. Apart from the various reasons assigned for dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge by the judgment under appeal in paragraph 5 has recorded a finding that the successful purchaser of the appellant's property is not made a party to the writ petition. The learned Judge recorded a further finding that the explanation offered by the appellant for such non-joinder of necessary party is not acceptable to the Court. It appears from the records that the Bank had informed the appellant by letter dated 10.7.2009 that the property which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant proceedings was auctioned on 20th April, 2009. By the said letter, the appellant herein was given a further opportunity to make remittance of the amount outstanding for a period of 15 days from the date of the notice with a caution that the property would be registered in the name of the successful bidder Mr.V.V.Paul without further notice. Relevant portion of the said letter reads as follows: W.A.No.630 of 2010 - 4 - “With reference to your above letter, kindly refer to our letter No.RBO KKD:228-16-19 dated 08.05.2009. As you have not complied with the orders of the Honourable High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, in the suit Nos.WP(C) No.37416/2008 and WA No.64/2009, the property mortgaged to us was auctioned on 20.04.2009 and the property will be registered in the name of the bidder very soon. Hence, we cannot permit the time sought by you for closing the account and if the entire amount is not paid within 15 days of this notice the property will be registered in the name of the bidder Mr.V.V.Paul, without further notice.” 7. The said letter was in the custody of the appellant on the date of filing of the writ petition. In fact, this letter was produced as Ext.P7 in the writ petition. In the circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant that he was not aware of either the sale or the information regarding the successful bidder was rightly rejected by the learned Judge. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the instant litigation is a sheer W.A.No.630 of 2010 - 5 - abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, it requires to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage with costs quantified to three thousand rupees. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns