A I D ROZARIO Vs. S JOSEPH PREMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner has prayed for quashing the General Notice and Mahazaar dated 25. 6. 2004, whereunder the fourth respondent has purported to attach the disputed property, and for a further direction to the fourth respondent not to issue any further notice or mahazaar under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, till the disposal of O. S. No. 7459 of 1996, on the file of VIII Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by the petitioner and pending against respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) THE aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner is a suit for specific performance of contract to enforce the agreement dated 1. 3. 1984. It is alleged by the petitioner that such agreement was between the petitioner and the first respondent, represented by his father, namely, the second respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 3 unilaterally and unlawfully cancelled the agreement and treated as if the petitioner was a tenant and, subsequently, the second respondent, representing the first respondent, created a sham transfer by registering a sale deed being Document No. 129 of 1989 dated 25. 1. 1989 in favour of the third respondent.

(3.) EVEN though counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent Corporation, it was stated by the counsel at the time of hearing of the writ petition that the property in question had been given as a collateral security by Respondent No. 3 for the credit facility availed by his wife, Proprietress of M/s. Kasalona Restaurant, and since the loan has not been repaid, steps have been taken for attachment of the present property in exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act.