A ANURADHA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners have prayed thattherespondentCanara Bank be restrained from dispossessing them from the premises bearing Municipal No.15-5-826, 15-5-826B, 15-5-826/1, 15-5-826/2 and 15-5-826/3 admeasuring 272 square yards situated at Afzulgunj, Hyderabad. They have further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent to give them an opportunity to repay the amount outstanding against late Sri K. Veeresh Murthy.

(2.) Late Sri K. Veeresh Murthy, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4 took a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent Bank and mortgaged the property in question by a registered deed executed in favour of the Bank. On account of non- repayment of the loan, the Bank initiated proceedings against the borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). In the first instance, notice under Section 13 (2) was issued. This was followed by notice under Section 13 (4). Thereafter; on an application made by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act, the concerned Court passed an order for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for taking possession of the property. Late Sri K. Veeresh Murthy does not appear to have challenged notices issued by the Bank under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Act. After his death on 29-10-2005, the petitioners also do not appear to have pursued the matter and contested the application filed by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act. However, when the Advocate Commissioner tried to take possession of the property in furtherance of order passed by the competent court, they made representation dated 16-1 -2006 for grant of time to clear the dues outstanding against late Sri K. Veeresh Murthy and then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna made a strenuous effort to persuade us to issue a direction to the respondents to consider representation dated 16-1-2006 and give 9 months time to them to clear the outstanding dues, but we have not felt persuaded to entertain the writ petition because,