IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOS.4870-4871 OF 2013 (CS-DAS) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.J.ANWAR JAN S/O LATE JAHER SAHEB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SMT. RAFAT ZIKRA W/O M.J.ANWAR JAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. SMT. NEELAM D/O M.J.ANWAR JAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 4. SRI. REHAN PASHA S/O M .J. ANWAR JAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE REPTD. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI M.J. ANWAR JAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.13, NANIDPURA KODLIPET - 571 231 SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI D.ASWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.11, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/M.D.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM- RECOVERY OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.11, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 O04 3. THE SALE OFFICER THE KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BRANCH OFFICE;
AT COLLEGE ROAD, I FLOOR SBM BRANCH BUILDING MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 231 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 R3 – SERVED) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the auction notice dt.17.12.2012 passed by the R2 produced as Annexure-D as against the statute & rules etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Learned counsel for 1st respondent files a memo along with a copy of letter dated 7.12.2015 as well as a copy of loan ledger ending with a transaction dated 02.12.2015.
2. According to him, petitioners herein who were challenging the auction notice to sell suit schedule property for recovery of loan due to 1st respondent, have paid the entire loan amount and as such, the transaction between the petitioners and the 1st respondent – Bank has come to an end. Therefore, petitions do not survive for consideration.
3. Learned counsel for 1st respondent would also state that in the light of entire amount being received, question of bringing petition schedule property for sale does not arise.
4. Memo is taken on record.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE RV