IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14559 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OP(INDIGENT) NO.4/2010 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RACHEL RAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN VARGHESE, CAHNDRAVIRUTHIL VEETTIL,ERUVALLIPRA MURI, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOSSY VARGHESE, AGED 47, S/O.VARGHESE,THOPPIL VEETTIL, KURISSUMMODU.PO.,PERUNAKIZHAKKU MURI, PERUNAKIZHAKKU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 2. SHEEBA JOSSY, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.JOSSY VARGHESE,THOPPIL VEETTIL, KURISSUMMODU.PO.,PERUNAKIZHAKKU MURI, PERUNAKIZHAKKU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 3. REJI JOHN, AGED 36,S/O.ULAHANNAN, MECHERRY VEETTIL,,KURISUMMOODU P.O., BRAHMAMANGALAM KARA, CHEMBU VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK. 4. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,H.D.F.C.HOUSE, P.B.NO.1667,RAVIPURAM,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-15. R4 - BY STANDING COUNSEL SHRI K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14559 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner in O.P.(Indigent) No.4 of 2010 of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla seeks intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, she had availed a loan from respondent Nos.1 and 2 who in turn obtained signed blank cheques and got a document executed by her as if it is a deed of mortgage but, it later turned out to be a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.3. On the strength of that power of attorney respondent No.3 executed sale deed in respect of the property in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 who for the purpose of purchasing the said property from respondent N.3 as power of attorney of petitioner availed loan of Rs.16 lakhs and created mortgage of the said property in favour of respondent No.4. Challenging the said transactions petitioner has filed Original Petition (Indigent) referred to above and, she has also filed an application for temporary injunction which is now pending consideration before the court concerned. In the meantime, respondents are attempting to forcibly evict the petitioner and hence this Writ Petition seeking an order restraining respondent No.4 from proceeding against the petitioner or her property till the disposal of O. P. (Indigent) No.4 of 2010 . Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla for expeditious disposal of O.P.(Indigent) No.4 of 2010 and Ext.P4, injunction application preferred therein. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 WP(C) No.14559/2010 2 submits that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, “the Act”) and that in the circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to grant injunction restraining respondent No.4 from initiating appropriate action as provided under law. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner has already initiated proceedings before the civil court and Ext.P4, application for injunction is pending consideration before that court. In such a situation the appropriate remedy for petitioner is to seek the intervention of the civil court if otherwise she is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the light of the contentions raised by respondent No.4 as to the maintainability of the suit and the power of the civil court to grant injunction in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the Act referred to above. It is for the court concerned to decide whether the contentions raised by the petitioner and respondent No.4 are sustainable or not. 3. It is seen that this Court has passed an interim order on 15.05.2010 directing that petitioner shall not be evicted from the suit property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to direct respondent No.4 not to forcibly evict the petitioner from the suit property until the disposal of Ext.P4, application for injunction preferred by the petitioner in the civil court. Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 not to forcibly evict petitioner from the suit property till Ext.P4, application for injunction is disposed of by the learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla. Learned Sub Judge is WP(C) No.14559/2010 3 directed to dispose of Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible, if steps are complete and at any rate within two months from this day. It is also directed that the grant of interim order by this Court shall not be taken as indicating maintainability of the suit as contended by the petitioner. That is a matter which the learned Sub Judge has to decide at the appropriate stage as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks