IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 654 of 2011(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAROJINI, AGED 73, W/O.LATE PADMANABHA PILLAI, RESIDING AT PADMA VILASOM, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB BRANCH, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. ADVOCATE ARCHANA M.D., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P.5679/2010, BAR ASSOCIATION, ALAPPUZHA. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.654 of 2011-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by affixture of Ext.P5 notice by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, on the building wherein she is residing. According to the petitioner the property in which the building is situated absolutely belongs to her and that she is the owner in possession of the said property. It is stated that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor with respect to the loan transaction and the property is not liable to be proceeded against. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to restrain from proceeding against her properties, on the basis of Ext.P5 notice. 2. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P5 notice was affixed on the basis of a proceedings issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in C.M.P.No.5679 of 2010. Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner's son had availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank by mortgaging a property having an extent of 2.02 Ares which in W.P(C) No.654 of 2011-F 2 fact is situated behind the building referred to by the petitioner. But it is stated that the son, who is the defaulter is also residing along with the petitioner in the same building and hence the notice is affixed on that building. 3. From the facts as narrated above, it is evident that the apprehended grievance of the petitioner is that the Advocate Commissioner may evict her from the building without properly identifying the property which is mortgaged by the defaulter. 4. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court with proper objections against any such apprehended action. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha is directed to consider objections if any raised by the petitioner and to make ensure that the proceedings for taking over possession of the property is pursued only against the property which is actually mortgaged for securing the loan account in question. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab