IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 1679 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- OA.216/2004 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.C.THOMAS, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 57, CHAVARA HOUSE, OLD DESAM ROAD, THOTTAKATTUKARA, ALUVA. 2. C.V.CHACKO, S/O.C.C.VARKEY, AGED 66, CHERUKULAM HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ALUVA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3. SMT.B.SATHY., W/O.SRI.R.SIVASANKARA KURUP, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, 'DASARATHAM', DESAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.1679 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 2nd petitioner is the brother-in-law of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is a judgment debtor in a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It appears that the 1st petitioner had certain other debts also including debts to the KFC. The 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitioner are stated to have entered into Ext.P1 agreement for sale of the property, on 8th July, 2006, thereby the 1st petitioner agreeing to transfer the property covered by the revenue recovery proceedings to the 2nd petitioner. At that point of time, it also appears that, going by Ext.P2, the bank had also conceded to the arrangements whereby the 2nd petitioner could take the property from the 1st petitioner for the amounts reflected in Ext.P2. However, thereafter, admittedly the offer made to the bank was not honoured and this resulted in the impugned sale proceedings, by which the third respondent has purchased the property in auction, that it was confirmed and notional delivery was also w.p.c.1679/08 2 recorded in the Ext.P5 certificate. Since actual possession was not granted, an order of stay was issued by this Court in this writ petition, when the petitioners were mainly trying to resolve the issue by settling the matter, between the bank, the third respondent and the petitioners. Following the interim order, certain amounts have already been deposited by the petitioners. But with the passage of time, it appears that the petitioners have not been able to settle the matter with the third respondent who is the auction purchaser. 2. The fact that auction was held is not in dispute. A certificate has also been issued following the same. The sale stands confirmed. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the petitioners are unable to get the orders from the competent authority setting aside the sale on the grounds referable to the provisions of law as are applicable, the only recourse was to settle the matter, even if most benevolence of the consideration is extended, as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the w.p.c.1679/08 3 sale in question, cannot be treated as void but could only be if at all, set aside by a competent authority, that too, in accordance with the statutory provisions. 4. In the result, without prejudice to the right of the 1st petitioner to apply for setting aside the sale by a competent authority, if permissible in accordance with law, it is directed that any amount paid following the interim order dated 14.1.2008 shall be released to the person who remitted, by the bank. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge