IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8086 of 2010(I) ------------------------- TA.211/1998 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- JOY OOMMEN,AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.P.O.OOMMEN,MANAGING PARTNER,M/S:PARALLEL BOTTLE SUPPLIERS,RESIDING AT PARACKEL, THUKALASSERY,THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR. GEORGE VARGHESE MR. P.R.MILTON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M/S.CORPORATION BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. M/S:FLUIDS AND ELECTROLYTES(P)LTD, AMBOORAN BUILDING,MANORAMA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. 3. DR.K.K.CHACKO,M/S:FLUIDS AND ELECTROLYTES(P)LTD,AMBOORAN BUILDING, MANORAMA JUNCTION,KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8086 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had purchased 20 cents of property in 'court auction' (in O.S. 775/95 of the Sub Court, Kottayam) in execution of a money decree and the same is stated as confirmed, as borne by Ext.P1 certificate. Ever since then, it is stated that, the petitioner is continuing to enjoy the said property with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and marketable title 2. While so, the petitioner came across the steps taken by the respondent Bank, for causing the above property to be sold in public auction, stating that, it is part of '55' cents of land, over which security interest was created by the respondents 2 to 4, in connection with the loan availed by them, from the first respondent Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that. the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and that the property owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded with. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits, with reference to the contents of the statement, that the delivery of the property to the petitioner was a 'stage-managed' one, in collusion with the other respondents concerned. The only attempt of the petitioner was to deny the proper access by way of motorable road W.P. (C) No. 8086 of 2010 : 2 : through the remaining extent of 35 cents of land, since the front portion having an extent of 20 cents is sought to be excluded, stating to be in the owner ship and possession of the petitioner. The respondents have also produced a 'sketch' marked as Ext.P1 along with the statement showing the lie and location of the property, simultaneously contending that, the contention of the petitioner that this property might be proceeded against only if the sale of the remaining property does not procure the necessary funds so as to wipe off the liability of the petitioner, cannot be taken into account. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable in so far as the charge was created on earlier occasion and further that the property cannot be sold by way of two lots since it will not generate the proper market value. It is stated that, the petitioner can also participate in the sale of the property, as and when the public auction is as notified. 5. This Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, in so far as the rights and interests of the respondents over the entire property in question, on which the charge was created by the respondents 2 to 4, stands conceded. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that, the respondent Bank shall conduct sale of the property with sufficient W.P. (C) No. 8086 of 2010 : 3 : publication and notice of the sale in writing shall be given to the petitioner as well, so to give him a chance to participate in the sale. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd