HASHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 2016, the petitioner herein instituted O.S. No 105 of 2016 in the Court of the Munsiff Varkala seeking return of Rs.500,000/ paid by way of advance to the respondents 6 and 7 consequent to the execution of an agreement for sale which is dated 26.10.2015. Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed an application seeking attachment, which was allowed by order dated 4.3.2016. This fact is evident from Exhibit P2 encumbrance certificate. The suit was finally decreed ex parte on 31.10.2018.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the property which was attached by the petitioner was notified for sale by the 5 th respondent bank and this fact came to his notice on 15.1.2020 from Exhibit P3 sale notice. Later, the property was sold to the 8th respondent by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . It is contended that the Bank had in fact sold an encumbered property as the property was attached by the Bank only on 21.12.2019, whereas the property was attached by the petitioner as early as on 4.3.2016. The petitioner contends that the sale held on 24.2.2020 is unjust and illegal and raising a challenge thereto, the petitioner has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. While so, the petitioner came to understand that the 8th respondent, who is the auction bidder, is trying to effect mutation. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and submitted a representation detailing all these aspects and requesting that the 8 th respondent not be permitted to effect mutation. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3 rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P4 within a time frame and for a further direction to the 4 th respondent not to affect mutation and receive land tax and for incidental reliefs.

(3.) By order dated 20.3.2020, this Court had granted an order restraining the 3rd respondent from effecting mutation.