IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16662 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAIMON JOSE,S/O.JOSEPH,KORATTIYIL HOUSE, POOVARANI.PO,LIKULAM VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686577. BY ADV. MR. V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,RAMAPURAM BRANCH,RAMAPURAM.PO,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER,STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,RAMAPURAM BRANCH,RAMAPURAM.PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. P.A.PRAKASH,S/O.,P.N.APPUKUTTAN, VADAKKEDATHU,EZHACHERRY.PO,VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, EZHACHERRY KARA,MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. R.S. KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16662 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the proceedings taken by the respondent Bank under the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act in respect of the property, which according to the petitioner belongs to him, though he had effected a conveyance in favour of the 3rd respondent in the course of securing a private loan from the said respondent, who is stated as a private financier. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, the third respondent herein, who is the absolute owner of the property, had created equitable mortgage over the property by depositing the title deed, in connection with the loan facility extended to the said respondent. It is also pointed out that there is no right, interest or locus standi to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, especially when the sale in favour of the third respondent is admitted and complete in all respects. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, since the third respondent did not accede to the request of the petitioner, as originally agreed, which made the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for effecting re-conveyance, as borne by Ext.P3 proceedings. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the WP (C) No. 16662 of 2009 : 2 : respondent Bank has also entered appearance in the Civil Court and filed Ext.P4 written statement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is intending to approach the DRT as well and that the steps taken in this regard are to be finalized within one week. 4. The challenge raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition against the steps taken by the respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act is quite wrong and misconceived. This Court does not find any merit at all to interfere with the proceedings and as such, no positive relief can be extended to the petitioner under any circumstances. However, considering the request made from the part of the petitioner, particularly as to the steps being pursued to approach the DRT to avail the statutory remedy, the impugned proceedings being pursued by the respondent Bank will be kept in abeyance till the 30th of this month. Subject to the above, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd