IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15615 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHYLA RAPHY, W/O. MOHAMMED RAPHY, NOORJAHAN MANZIL, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAFCO GA0DENS, MANNORKONAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. MOHAMMED RAPHY, NOORJAHAN MANZIL, VETTIPPURAM PATHANAMTHITTA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RAFCO GARDENS, MANNORKONAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PTHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY IT'S GENERAL MANAGER. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR SALE, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. C.HABEEB HAJI, UZHINJETHU HOUSE, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PRESENTLY STAYING AT 164 B, VIKAS NAGAR, T.K.M. COLLEGE P.O. KARIKKODE QUILON-5. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R5 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1,3 & 4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15615 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners availed a housing loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 3rd respondent Bank on the strength of immovable properties, over which security interest was created by the Bank. The liability was not satisfied on time by effecting the necessary instalments; which made the Bank to proceed with steps under the SARFAESI Act, after declaring the account as 'NPA'. Pursuant to the steps as aforesaid, the property was caused to be sold in public auction and the sale was effected in favour of the 5th respondent, who has satisfied the entire bid amount. It was in the said circumstance, that the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing WP (C) 15009/2010; which however was sought to be withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court if so necessitated and accordingly, the said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.05.2010. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn as insisted by the parties concerned to have an 'amicable settlement' in this regard and the petitioner has already approached the 5th respondent who according to the petitioner is only a name lender. Things did not take a positive turn, since the 5th respondent unfortunately took a 'U turn' according to the petitioner. 2 WP(C) No. 15615/2010 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, urgent notice was issued to the 5th respondent who entered appearance and filed counter affidavit contending that the 5th respondent is not a name lender. The petitioner filed I.A.8159/2010 to implead the other bidders as additional respondents 6 and 7. In spite of allowing the said I.A. and ordering notice to the parties, they are still to appear before this Court. Additional 6th respondent is stated as residing abroad. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this by itself will reveal the course and conduct of the parties concerned; thus seeking of substantiate the element of fraud, though the same strongly rebutted from the part of the 5th respondent. 4. The fact remains that the sale of the properties has already been effected and if at all the petitioner wants to challenge the same, appropriate proceedings have to be filed before the DRT availing the statutory remedy as provided. This Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, nor does intend to assume the role of fact finding agency. 5. In the above circumstance, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings by availing the statutory remedy in accordance with law. So as to enable the petitioner to 3 WP(C) No. 15615/2010 pursue such exercise, status-quo shall be maintained for a period of one month. It is also made clear that, this judgment will not bar the way of the parties concerned to have amicable settlement of the issue, if possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc