IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 187 of 2007(V)
1. SHAJU ANTONY, S/O.N.C.ANTONY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
4. A.J.SIMON,
5. PHILIP MULAKKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
W.P.(C)No.187 OF 2007
............................................
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the second respondent in I.A.4971 of
2006 in O.S.165 of 2004 of Sub Court, Thrissur. Fifth
respondent is the petitioner/plaintiff in that suit.
Second respondent was the first respondent in I.A.4971
of 2006. The suit was filed by the 5th respondent for
realisation of the amount due from petitioner. I.A 4971
of 20006 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit for a
direction to second respondent, Bank to deposit the
balance amount in excess of Rs.15,45,649/-realised by
the bank by sale of the mortgaged property belonging to
the petitioner. The property was sold by the bank,
invoking the powers under Securities and Realisation
Act. Under Ext.P9 order, learned Sub Judge directed the
bank to deposit the excess amount realised by bank
before that court. This petition is filed under Article
227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P9 order.
The case of petitioner was that challenging the action
taken by the bank, for the sale of the mortgaged
property, petitioner filed WP(C) 33204 of 2006 before
WP(C)187/2007 2
this court and under Ext.P10 order an order of stay was
passed by this court and if the petitioner is to
succeed in the writ petition, no amount could be
deposited by the bank before the sub court and
therefore Ext.P10 order is to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and
respondents 1 to 3 were heard.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner was that as the writ petition is pending
challenging the sale and if petitioner is to succeed in
the writ petition, no amount could be deposited by the
bank and in that event as the property has already been
attached by the plaintiff as per order in I.A.1064 of
2004, there is no necessity for a direction to deposit
excess amount realised by the bank and therefore
Ext.P10 order is to be quashed.
4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for
petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with
Ext.P9 order except providing that the deposit if any
made by the bank in O.S.165 of 2004, pursuant to Ext.P9
order, would be subject to the result of WP(C) 33204 of
2006 and the court shall not release the amount to the
WP(C)187/2007 3
plantiff before disposal of WP(C) 33204 of 2006.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-