Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27816 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Maya Devi And Others Respondent :- Allahabad Bank And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Archana Singh Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Archana
Singh, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent
bank.
Prayer in this petition is for a direction to the respondent
bank to sell the mortgaged property (Petitioners share) by
way of open bidding by advertisement.
There is no dispute about the fact that bank has published
notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act .
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel who appeared for the respondent bank this is clear
that earlier respondent no. 3 came before this court by filing
writ petition No. 13369 of 2010 and he obtained instruction
for withdrawal of amount by the bank as standing in saving
bank account. Thereafter present petitioner moved
application for recall of the order on the ground that account
is in the joint name and thus petitioner was not justified in
getting that order passed by this court.
On 29.4.2010 this court withdrew the order passed by this
court on 18.3.2010.
Now present petitioners are before this court.
Submission that respondents be directed to sell the property
(petitioners share) is not acceptable by this court for the
simple reason that admittedly property in dispute which is
subject matter of mortgage has not be partitioned and thus
on the principle that every co-sharer has right over every
inch of land we cannot issue writ, as prayed. Passing of the
order for disposal of the petitioners share will further
complicate the issue.
This court is not satisfied that in respect to the loan amount
which is sought to be recovered petition after petition i.e. by
the private respondent no. 3 and thereafter by the presents
petitioners can be said to be entertainable by this court.
In respect to his grievance petitioners have remedy so
provided under the Act and thus the petitioners may take
recourse as permissible in law.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010
M.A.A.