MATHEW JACOB Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows :- Petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 54 cents in Re-Sy.No.38/2 and 5 acres of land in Re-Sy. No.37/2 and 38/1 in Akathethara Village, Palakkad District. The properties were mortgaged by the petitioner with the 5th and 6th respondent Banks for getting loan. Due to the default in repayment of the loan amount, Bank had filed suit and the same decreed in favour of the Bank with simple interest. Thereafter the properties were purchased by the Bank in E.P. in court auction. Once the petitioner had arranged the money, he had approached the Bank for settling both the loan accounts. But the Bank did not consider the same at any point of time. Thereafter the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.8923/2012 and W.P.(C) No.16004/2012 before this Court for getting direction to the Bank to accept the loan amount which was deposited before the Sub Court, Palakkad and also to setting aside the sale. It is submitted that an interim stay was obtained in W.P.(C) No.8923/2012. During the period of stay itself, Bank had initiated steps to sell the property in public auction. The auction of the Bank is illegal. Now it is understand that the property is sold to the 4th respondent without complying Order 21 Rule 95 of C.P.C. The 4th respondent is now trying to evict the petitioner and his family from the subject properties. Due to the illegal interference of the 4th respondent and their men petitioner and his family are not in a position to continue their life in the said property. Pointing out the illegal activities of the 4th respondent, petitioner had preferred complaints to the 1st and 2nd respondents by Ext.P4. No action has been taken by the police in this regard. There is threat to the life and property of the petitioner.

(3.) WE are not inclined to give any relief in respect of the property and we only record the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent will not cause any threat to the life of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above.