IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25167 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.MOHAMMED SHAHIR, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 47, AMRUT MARKETING AGENCIES, 33/10, 88A PATTATH ROAD, KOCHI-28. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAER & AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 685002. 3. JOBY K. MATHEW, AGED 37, S/O K.M.MATHEW, KALLEARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 25167 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is instituted on 11.8.2007. After an initial listing on 18.8.2007, this matter came up only on 5.3.2009 and it was adjourned to today. 2. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and seeks a direction for consideration of Ext.P5. Apart from the fact that Ext.P3 was issued way back on 25.1.2007, it was not issued as against the petitioner, but against the third respondent and another. Ext.P5 is made by the petitioner in June 2007, essentially challenging the SARFAESI Act proceedings on the ground that the exemptions under the SARFAESI Act apply and also that the proceedings are against the properties over which the petitioner claims certain rights. Though he held out Ext.P2 injunction order in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the bank states that the said injunction order is no more in existence and that the said suit itself does not continue, the plaint having been returned for WP(C) 25167/2007 2 want of jurisdiction. I do not find any ground for the petitioner to seek indulgence of the writ court and issuance of any direction as sought for. Writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/3