IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5955 of 2008(H)
1. JANAKY,AGED 66,W/O.PATTATH SUBRAMANIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. KRISHNAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN,ADICHILI
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/03/2008
O R D E R
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/-