IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.25512-25513/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. AGADOORAPPA S/O LATE MORSUR MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.329, 10TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH C CROSS, II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 (BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADV.) AND:
1. AXIS BANK LTD SOUTHERN RECOVERY CELL, 2ND FLOOR, NO.192, KARUMUTHU NILAYAM, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002 REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 2. MRS. N.R.NAGARATHA D/O N.V.RAJAPPA, ADULT, JANAMUKHI, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, PARAMANA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE-562123 (BY SRI V MOHAN, ADV. FOR C/R1 SRI S A AHMED, ADV. FOR R2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN FAVOUR OF THE R-2 (ANNX-J) REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.CMP-1-10685-2015-16.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the sale certificate dated 17.03.2016 issued in favour of respondent No.2 and registered as document No. CMP-1-10685/2015-16.
2. The petitioner claims to be the vendor of the borrower from respondent No.1-Bank. The said property was offered as a security for the loan secured by the borrower from respondent No.1. Since the borrower had defaulted, respondent No.1 had brought the property to sale in which respondent No.2 has purchased the same and the sale certificate as at Annexure-J has been issued and registered. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the said sale certificate.
3. A perusal of the petition papers would disclose that the petitioner contends that a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.996/2014 and therefore the sale as made by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 is hit by the principles of lis pendence. From the very document produced by the petitioner along with the petition, it is seen that the petitioner was before this Court on a similar contention when the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was taken out in respect of the property in question. This Court through the order dated 09.11.2015 in W.P.Nos.31091-92/2015 on recording a similar contention has held that the petitioner is required to pursue the remedies in the suit and had accordingly disposed of the petitions.
4. At the present stage, there is no material on record to indicate that the suit in O.S.No.996/2014 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of one way or the other in accordance with law. If that be the position, the claim of the petitioner that it is hit by the principles of lis pendence at this stage would not arise. If at all the petitioner succeeds in the suit, it is only thereafter the said issue would come to fore and appropriate consideration is necessary at that stage.
5. Therefore though liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail his remedy in the suit as is already been permitted by this Court in the earlier order, I am of the opinion that the prayer as made in the instant petition cannot be granted at this stage.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms