The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to the above sale, including the sale confirmation and creation of sale certificate until a decision is taken in the pending S.A. before the DRT, Ernakulam.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the above sale and set aside the same in the interest of justice.
And
III. Issue other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the petitioners admittedly have moved the DRT, where the S.A. is pending. In spite of granting interim stay, the petitioners did not choose to honour the commitment by way of satisfying the condition. It is stated that, the property was put to sale earlier but the sale came to be adjourned in view of the W.P.(C) No.27910 of 2014 2 subsequent developments. In the course of further proceedings, the sale has been conducted and confirmation is scheduled to be finalised tomorrow. It is on the eve of confirmation of the sale, that the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court, which is only to protract things and it is not with any bonafides.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that nothing prevents the petitioners to move the DRT, if at all any modification of the interim order already passed is to be made or if any other order is required. This Court does not find it fit to call for interference. The petitioner is relegated to move the DRT for redressal of grievance, if any.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp