The petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.27898 of 2014, with a prayer to stay the auction proceedings, at Exhibit P4. This Court had also granted stay on condition of payment of Rupees One lakh. The stay was granted only on the impression that the sale proceeded with was for recovery of the amounts due in a loan account which the petitioner had availed of from the 1st respondent.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that there was another writ petition, numbered as W.P.(C).No.9061 of 2012, taking almost similar contentions and also seeking consideration of a representation. Hence, this Court directed the said case also to be posted along with W.P.(C).No.27898 of 2014. The 1st respondent has filed its counter affidavit in both the writ petitions.
3. It is to be noticed that the sale now proposed is not for recovery of loan; but the sale was of the property which the Bank had purchased on earlier recovery proceedings. The petitioner, admittedly had availed of a loan as early as in 1995. The principal amount availed was Rs.25,000/- and default was committed in repayment. The respondent-Bank filed A.R.C. in the year 1996 and the petitioner participated in the same and an award was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner having failed to satisfy the award, the Bank proceeded against the property mortgaged by the petitioner, by filing E.P.No.41 of 2002 before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri; in which Execution Petition the petitioner was a party. The Bank purchased the property on 14.01.2004 in a sale conducted by the Court and subsequently the sale was confirmed on 17.03.2004.
4. Further to the confirmation of the sale, the Bank filed a further Execution Petition, as E.P.No.266 of 2005, for effecting delivery of the property, which was also done on 01.04.2006, long prior to the above writ petitions. The Bank is said to be in possession of the property from the date on which the delivery was granted to the Bank, by the Munsiff Court.
5. Now, the Bank has proceeded to sell the property by a public auction, which the petitioner seeks to interdict. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason why the sale should be interdicted. The Bank had taken possession of the property long before the present writ petitions were filed. The petitioner's contention that, the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount with interest due cannot be countenanced at this stage, since the respondent-Bank had been diligently prosecuting the matter before the Arbitration Court and the executing Court and obtained sale of the property and took possession of the same long before the prayer was made by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek for resumption of the property on the grounds stated in the writ petitions, for the sheer reason of passage of time and the market value of the property having considerably increased. Definitely, the Bank cannot be deprived of the property on the ground that the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amounts due with interest. It is also to be specifically noticed that there is no amount due as of now, since the same has been satisfied by the sale of the property effected by the Court, which purchase was made by the Bank itself. In such circumstance, no grounds exist to order resumption of the property.
Resultantly, the writ petitions would stand dismissed. The respondent-Bank shall immediately refund the amounts deposited as per the interim order of this Court, to the petitioner, within a period of one week from today. It is observed that definitely, the petitioner would be entitled to participate in the auction proceedings. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )