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 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1305 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4991/2010 Dated 01/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRIPAD, THEKKINIYEDATH THARANELLUR CHEMBAPPILLY MANA, KATTOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE CANARA BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, WEST PALACE ROAD BRANCH, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK LIMITED, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. 3. M/S.KOBBLER LEATHER MAN AND SHOE MALL, CITY CENTRE BUILDING, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-680001. R1 & R2 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1305 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4991 of 2010 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P10 possession notice issued by respondents 1 and 2 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant who has transferred his right to the third respondent under Ext.R1(a) sale deed dated 7.6.2006 is no longer the owner of the property and cannot maintain the writ petition. 3. We heard Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the recitals in Ext.P8 plaint that the property involved in the writ petition does not now belong to W.A.No.1305 of 2010 . - 2 - the appellant. Though the appellant has instituted a suit to have the sale deed in favour of the third respondent set aside, since the appellant is not presently the owner of the property we are of the opinion that he cannot claim any right over the property or challenge the action of the bank in proceeding against the property to recover the amount due from the third respondent. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the appellant is not entitled to challenge Ext.P10 notice. We therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns