IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19060 of 2011(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.55, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.M.P.JACKSON BY ADVS. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL, SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.B.V.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA,PIN-680 121 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DIST, PIN-680 121. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PULLUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 683. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.H.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19060/2011 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE CERTIFICATE NO.2585/1/2010 OF S.R.O., IRINJALAKKUDA. P2: COPY OF LETTER NO.81/11 DTD. 23/06/2011 ISSUED BY R3. P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.10250/2009 DTD. 7/04/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.19060 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. The Bank purchased a property, which was mortgaged to it and Ext.P1 is the sale deed that was eventually registered in its favour. The petitioner Bank applied for mutation, that was rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that an attachment is in force. 2. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 and directing the respondent to effect mutation of the property. 3. This issue is fully covered in the petitioner's favour, as per Ext.P3 judgment, wherein this Court has already held that since mutation is only for fiscal purposes any attachment order a recovery proceedings could not stand in the way of respondents in passing orders, during pendency of such proceedings. In that view of the matter Ext.P2 is unsustainable and therefore it is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on producing a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE