IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35582 of 2007(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- ANTONY M.MANOOPARAMBIL, S/O.JOSEPH, M/S.MASS INDUSTRIES, PARIPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UCO BANK, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MANAGER, UCO BANK, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 35582/2007 J JUDGEMENT There was no representation when the case was called on 29/01/2008. Today also there is no representation. Hence this writ petition is dismissed for default. 04/03/2008. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE True copy tga APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ACCOUNT NO. CC 75. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R2 DT. 15/6/07. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION 25/7/07 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT. 02/11/2007 BY THE R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.35582 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner availed a loan. He defaulted repayment and when the amounts accrued, the respondents initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. This writ petition is then filed seeking a direction for consideration of a representation. An interim order was issued by this Court on 19.12.2007 staying further proceedings, if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rupees two lakhs. That amount was not paid. The interim order, thus, stood vacated. Later, there was no representation for the writ petitioner and this writ petition was dismissed. The matter was later restored to file. But, in the mean while, sale took place and third party interests have intervened. The petitioner has applied for impleading the purchaser on record. In the aforesaid scenario, particularly when the petitioner did not even comply with the direction to pay Rs.2 lakhs and had been enjoying the order of stay from 19.12.2007, I do not find it WPC.35582/08 Page numbers necessary for this Court to interfere with the matter, when the sale under SARFAESI Act is a measure which can be subjected to appropriate application before the competent Tribunal under that Act. When third party rights have intervened, I deem it inappropriate for this Court to interfere, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. This writ petition fails. The same is hence dismissed. All interlocutory applications are also dismissed without prejudice to what is stated above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.