Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2 and P5. Ext.P2 is a notice dated 18/06/2014 issued by the respondent bank intimating the petitioner regarding confirmation of sale of property pursuant to an auction held on 26/03/2014. Ext.P5 is a further communication by which the bank had informed the petitioner that since the petitioner had not fully settled the amount as per the order of this Court in W.P.C.No.17277/2014, the sale was confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, he is willing to pay the entire amount due to the bank and he has even taken a demand draft for the same. But the bank is not willing to accept the same.
2. Sale was held on 26/03/2014 and the same has been confirmed as per Ext.P5 pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.C.No.17277 of 2014. In fact, the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasions and by an order dated 22/07/2014 in W.P.C.No.17277/2014, W.P.C.No.24589/2014 2 this Court granted the petitioner time till 22/08/2014 to pay the entire amount. It was further mentioned that “if payment is not made, then the sale shall be confirmed on 23/08/2014”. Subsequently, a judgment was passed in the above writ petition on 02/09/2014 wherein this Court observed that the petitioner would have to seek his remedies elsewhere, if the sale is to be challenged.
3. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the property was grossly undervalued. I do not think that this Court can go into the merits or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition especially when his right to challenge Exts.P2 and P5 has been settled by the judgment in W.P.C.No.17277/2014. Since this Court had already taken a view in the above writ petition, this writ petition is clearly an abuse of process which cannot be entertained.
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr