IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36058 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REMADEVI, W/O.GOPINATHAN A.V., RESIDING AT NANDANAM HOUSE, (KAVADA VEEDU) MALAKKARA P.O., ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK REPRESENTD BY THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER CPGP TOWERS, UPPALAM ROAD, NEAR STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER CUM AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK SATHABDHI BHAVAN, MINI BYPASS ROAD, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CHENGANNUR BRANCH, CHENGANNUR. 4. K.SATHEESH KUMAR, AMBADI KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER BY SADV. SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 36058 OF 2009 .................................. ................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a guarantor to the housing loan availed from the third respondent Bank by the husband of the petitioner. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the loan amount could not be repaid on time, under which circumstance, the bank took coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act, which in turn was subjected to challenge by the husband of the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 9057 of 2009. After considering the facts and circumstances this Court permitted the petitioner therein (husband of the petitioner herein) to wipe out entire liability by way of installments as specified inExt.P3 judgment. Presumably dissatisfied with the verdict, the petitioner therein approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A.No. 1413 of 2009. When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 03.07.2009, it was reported that there was a chance W.P(C) No. 36058 OF 2009 2 for settlement and accordingly, an interim order was passed as borne by Ext.P5. It appears that the settlement did not take place and the property was sold in favour of the 4th respondent by way of public auction. Taking note of the turn of events, the Division Bench, as per Ext.P6, permitted to implead the auction purchaser, which was complied with subsequently. After the final hearing held on 23.10.2009, on the basis of the submission made from the part of the appellant that the appellant did not intend to pursue the matter any further, permission was given to withdraw the Writ Appeal and accordingly, it was dismissed as withdrawn, as borne by Ext.P7. The case of the petitioner is that withdrawal of the case of the husband was because of a wrong assurance and idea conveyed to the appellant therein and hence the respondent Bank is not justified in proceeding against the property belonging to the petitioner herein, over which security interest has been created in favour of the Bank, being the guarantor to the loan transaction. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank as W.P(C) No. 36058 OF 2009 3 well as the Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 3. The averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition have been chosen to be rebutted by filing a counter affidavit from the part of the third respondent-Bank. After referring to the sequence of events, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after impleadment of the 4th respondent /auction purchaser the Writ Appeal was posted before the Division Bench for mediation and considering the promise to satisfy the entire dues before 30.09.2009, the defaulter was given time till that time, which however was not satisfied; nor the appellant therein had chosen to appear before the mediator and it was in the said circumstances, the matter was posted again before the Division Bench, pursuant to the petition filed by the Bank to vacate the interim order. It is also stated in paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit that when the Division Bench was about to award exemplary costs, the appellant sought for permission to withdraw the appeal, which led to Ext. P7 verdict. Subsequent to the turn of events, the sale was confirmed in favour of the 4th respondent, who effected the initial deposit as prescribed and W.P(C) No. 36058 OF 2009 4 later on sanctioning a loan in favour of the 4th respondent and availing the benefit thereon, the balance was also cleared. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to entertain the Writ Petition invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law, by resorting to the appropriate remedy as provided under the Statute. The Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk