IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NOS. 4751 OF 2009 AND 21028 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 4751 of 2009 Between: M. Kishore son of M. Rangaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Bank , Rep. by its General Manager , Chennai and four others .....RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION NO. 21028 OF 2008 Hamsharunnisa W/o Late sarvar Mohiuddin ….Petitioner and Indian Bank represented by its General Manager and three others …. Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) As both the Writ Petitions are interconnected they are being disposed of with this common order. Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2009 has been filed challenging the sale notice dated 10.2.2009 issued under Rules 6(2) & 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and Writ Petition No. 21028 of 2008 has been filed challenging the notice dated 6.8.2008 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SRFAESI Act’). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2009 purchased the property in question under two registered sale deeds after making all enquires in Khammam and paid the sale consideration to his vendor i.e. the 5th respondent and her sons. While so, The 4th respondent herein issued auction-cum- sale notice dated 10.2.2009 stating that the property of the petitioner shall be put to auction on 12.3.2009. The petitioner immediately approached the Bank and came to know that the husband of the 5th respondent obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the first respondent Bank on 25.2.1983 and for recovery of that amount, the Bank filed O.S.No. 655 of 1988 and obtained a decree without making the legal heirs of the original borrower on record and proceeded for recovery of amount by invoking the SRFAESI Act. Whereas, petitioner in W.P.No. 21028 of 2008 is the wife of late Sarvar Mohiuddin who obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent-Bank. As her late husband did not repay the loan obtained by him, the respondent- Bank issued notice dated 6.8.2008 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act for taking necessary steps to take possession of EM of House site of 400 sq.yards and RCC House in Plot No. 3, Nehru Nagar, Vyra Road, Khammam, under the SRFAESI Act. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank, petitioners preferred these two writ petitions. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they are the bonafide purchasers and they are not aware of the property being mortgaged with the bank by the husband of the 5th respondent and the Bank played fraud on the petitioners and simply invoked the provisions of SRFAESI Act without following the procedure. This Court while issuing notice before admission on 6.3.2009 directed the respondents to postpone the auction by five weeks from that date, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- within four weeks. It is submitted that in pursuance of the interim directions, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2009 deposited an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as directed and according to the sale notice dated 10.2.2009, the Bank has to recover an amount of Rs. 9,34,777/- as on 23.7.2008. The petitioner in W.P.No. 4751 of 2009 contends that the petitioner purchased the property by paying sale consideration without knowing the fact that the property is under mortgage and therefore, he pleads that his rights have to be safeguarded. As the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as directed by this Court on 6.3.2009 and the first respondent-Bank has obtained decree, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make an application to the Bank, seeking for one time settlement or waiver of interest, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made, the respondent-Bank shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. On such communication being received, the petitioner shall clear off the debt within two months thereafter. As far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 21028 of 2008 is concerned, it is submitted that the respondent-Bank has already sold the property. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in Writ Petition No. 21028 of 2008 and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 4751 of 2009 is disposed of as indicated above and the Writ Petition No. 21028 of 2008 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 30.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies