MOLLY SKARIAH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that after having represented that the Bank who is the decree holder in the suit wanted no decree against the petitioner and the suit against the petitioner having been dismissed, the Bank cannot now turn around seeking attachment and sale of the property which belongs to the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE petitioner points out that even prior to the attachment effected in O.S. No. 295/2009 which was one for realisation of money from the defendants 1 and 2, the property had been sold to the petitioner herein. It was under these circumstances that the Bank had given up the relief as against the petitioner. Having done so, impleading the petitioner in the E.P proceedings and the proceeding as against the property belonging to the judgment debtor cannot have support in law. It is also contended that the objections filed by the petitioner to bring the property for sale which is evidenced by Ext.P7 have not been considered and the right put forward by the petitioner has not been adjudicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Bank is not entitled to proceed against the property because it did not belong to the judgment debtor as on the date of attachment and also that since the objections of the petitioner produced as Ext.P7 have not been considered, the order Ext.P6 now passed ordering sale of the property cannot be sustained.

(3.) EVEN assuming that the property was purchased by the petitioner prior to the attachment, in the suit the Bank proceeded as if the property continued to belong to defendants 1 and 2 and the attachment was effected. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner was the 3rd defendant in the suit and the suit against her was dismissed as no relief was sought for. From the judgment produced, it is seen that the petitioner has got herself impleaded in the suit by filing I.A. No. 1698/2009 and after she was impleaded, she did nothing in the matter. If the petitioner had a case that the property was not liable to be attached, it was for her to get it adjudicated at that point of time after knowing that the property has been attached in the suit. She did nothing at that point of time.