IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26737 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- KEECHIPRATH SUNDARAN, PEECHALI HOUSE, P.O.KATTAMPALLY, KANNUR-15. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, STRESSED ASSETS RESOLUTION CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, THAVOT PALACE, 6/102, KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT-673 001. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PALAYAM BRANCH, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT. 3. KADAVAN HAMEED, RUKHIYA MANZIL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. 4. KACHAIPUTHIYAPURAYIL MOHAMMED HARIS, S/O.KADAVAN HAMEED, RUKHIYA MANZIL, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR,SC. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 26737 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the proceedings now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in exercise of Section 14 (1) of the said Act, are under challenge in this Writ Petition. According to the petitioner he is a bonafide purchaser of a portion of immovable property which is now proceeded against. The loan in question was availed by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner he had purchased the property from the 3rd respondent who is the father of the 4th respondent. From Exts.P1 and P2 documents it is revealed that the 3rd respondent had created a settlement deed in favour of the 4th respondent and the same was subsequently cancelled. In Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds through which the petitioner had purchased a portion of the property, these facts are clearly mentioned and the 4th respondent has also joined as a vendor. Considering the above situation I am of the opinion that the challenge raised by the petitioner could not be adjudicated in a proceedings under Article 226, especially in view of the availability of statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act. 2 WP(C) No. 26737/2010 2. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this Writ Petition without prejudice to his rights to approach the statutory appellate authority. 3. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner if any available under law to approach the appellate authority under the SARFAESI Act. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc