IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5085 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MRS.R. HALEEMA, D/O. P.HASSANAR MPM HOUSE, T.C. 19/2001 MUDAVANMUGAL POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, CHALAI BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,THIRUMALA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5085 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from 10.058 cents of land and the building therein, the title deeds of which has been mortgaged in the respondent Bank. The prayer made by the writ petitioner is that proceedings have already been initiated by the Bank and that OA 35/07 filed is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Therefore, petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the proceedings in the OA, she shall not be evicted invoking powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2. Learned counsel for the Bank has entered appearance on notice and submits that this is the 4th writ petition that the petitioner has filed. It is submitted that initially when proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act ,W.P(C) WPC 5085/08 :2 : No.9701/2007 was filed and that writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and this court had directed that the appeal be entertained despite the fact that it was already belated. Again the petitioner filed WP(C) No.17332/07, which was also disposed of directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the appeal which was already filed by the petitioner. The appeal was thereafter heard and it was dismissed and still later the petitioner filed WP(C) 20203/07 for quashing the whole proceedings. It is stated that as condition for entertaining that writ petition, this court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs by order dated 2/7/07 and even that condition has not been complied with. This writ petition is still pending. 3. It is stated by the counsel for the Bank that the proceedings continued and finally the Bank applied for an order under Section 14 of the Act and that application is pending. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed. It is also pointed out that the liability of the petitioner is more than a crore and that the Bank has no other option other than to initiate further WPC 5085/08 :3 : action in the matter. 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when Debts Recovery Tribunal is seized of the matter in OA 35/07, the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the property on the strength of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. I am not in a position to accept this plea. It is settled law that during the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT, the Bank is competent to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act against the mortgaged properties. If that be the legal position, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. That apart, in my view, petitioner is also guilty of suppression of facts. Although she had filed three writ petitions in this court on the same issue, except mentioning about WP(C) No.20203/07, there is absolutely no mention of the previous litigation between the parties. In my view the relief sought for WPC 5085/08 :4 : cannot be granted for this reason as well. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Needles to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Bank for any settlement of the liability. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp