The petitioner, who was a borrower from the respondent Bank, admittedly committed default in the loan account. The mortgaged properties were proceeded against in E.P.142 of 2008-09. The contention of the petitioner is that, two properties were mortgaged and that the sale having been effected only with respect to one, the other property can be returned so as to facilitate the petitioner to avail a further loan on the strength of the mortgage of the said property and then seek for resumption of the property already sold in auction. This Court considered the issue in Ext.P7 and directed that the petitioner shall approach the 1st respondent, within two weeks. 2. The petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7, filed Ext.P8 representation before the respondent Bank. At that point of time, there was a Scheme titled as 'Ashwas-2014' by which a One Time Settlement Scheme was in force. The respondent Bank hence replied to Ext.P8 by Ext.P9. In Ext.P9, it is indicated that a total of 2.75 acres of property was mortgaged to the respondent Bank. In E.P.142 of 2008-09, 1.50 acres of property were put in public auction and since there were no takers for the property, the Bank itself had purchased the same. The Bank expressed its willingness to resume the property if the entire amounts due in the loan are paid, as indicated in 'Ashwas-2014' on or before 31.03.2014. It is an admitted fact that the Scheme was again extended upto 31.06.2014. The petitioner admittedly did not remit the amounts due and now again seeks for release of the property which was not sold in auction, since the Bank's loan stands satisfied by the sale of 1.50 acres.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank however, submits that a total of 2.75 cents of property was mortgaged to the respondent Bank. Without the sale certificate being issued with respect to 1.50 acres of property, there can be no release of the balance properties, is the contention raised. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however argue that the said properties are covered by two different documents and the Bank should definitely release the property since the sale is concluded.
4. This Court cannot direct release of the mortgaged property before a sale certificate is issued. In such circumstances, the authority who has to issue the sale certificate, shall expedite the said process and in that event, the petitioner shall be entitled to release of the balance property if the loan stands satisfied. However, this is not to say that, this Court had passed any order with respect to resumption which cannot be done at this stage since the One Time Settlement is no more applicable. If the petitioner claims for resumption of property, then that shall be only at the discretion of the respondent Bank.
The writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//