The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking to set aside the sale of the property conducted on 11.10.2014 by the 2nd respondent, as per Exts.P10 and P11.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the sale conducted is not correct or sustainable in law and no mandatory notice of 30 days' notice was ever given. It is also brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that, the borrower has already approached the DRT by filing S.A. No.608 of 2013, in respect of the earlier instance of sale and that the said S.A. is still pending.
3. Going by the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner, this Court finds that this is a case where the matter will have to be considered based on the specific pleadings and evidence to be let in and as such, the proper forum is the concerned Tribunal, where the said exercise could be pursued in an effective manner. This Court does not propose to act as a fact W.P.(C) No.29253 of 2014 2 finding agency and as such, interference is declined. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to move the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp