IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 5955 of 2008(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JANAKY,AGED 66,W/O.PATTATH SUBRAMANIAN ADICHILI DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, BHARATHAKSHEMAM BUILDING, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,MELUR BRANCH THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 4. KRISHNAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN,ADICHILI DESOM, MELUR VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC FOR SBI GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 5955 OF 2008 - H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The relief sought for in this writ petition is not to proceed against Ext. P1 property on the basis of Exts. P3 and P5. 2. According to the petitioner, a contiguous plot of 11 cents belongs to the petitioner and her son, the 4th respondent in this writ petition. It is stated that out of the said 11 cents the petitioner owns 4 cents and the 4th respondent owns 7 cents. Mortgaging the 7 cents of property that he owns, the 4th respondent availed of a housing loan from the respondent bank. Default was committed and decree was obtained by the bank which is Ext. R1(a) and the decree also includes the house that was constructed availing of the loan. 3. The local authority has assessed the building in the name of the 4th respondent. Though that was subsequently changed into the name of the petitioner, at the instance of the bank, W.P.(C) No. 5955 OF 2008 - 2 - the panchayat cancelled the change and restored the assessment in the name of the 4th respondent himself. 4. The bank proceeded under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and after obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Act, the bank published Ext. R1(e) sale notice in January, 2008. At that stage, petitioner filed a suit, O.S. No. 320/07 before the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy in which an order of interim injunction was obtained and that was got vacated by the bank. CMA filed has also been dismissed. Still later the petitioner filed O.S. No. 498/07 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda for fixation of the boundary. It is stated that the suit is pending and that the application for injunction restraining the bank from proceeding against the building is also pending. While so, this writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier. 5. In my view, it is not permissible for the petitioner to resort to parallel proceedings. As already noticed, raising the contention that she is not covered by the provisions under the Act and seeking fixation of the boundary of the property by demarcating with the W.P.(C) No. 5955 OF 2008 - 3 - property of the petitioner and that of the property of the 4th respondent she has already moved a suit which is pending. Rightly she has also moved an application for injunction. Therefore, it is for the civil court to consider the said application made by the petitioner and to decide as to whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for restraining the bank from proceeding further with Ext. R1(e) sale notice. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-