T. Mani vs The Kerala Finance Corporation and Others

A.K. Basheer, J.—This litigation has had many twists and turns and in the process, the revenue sale which took place in the year 2005 has been hanging fire for the last more than four years. Resultantly, the auction purchaser has not been able to enjoy the property even though he had deposited the sale prise immediately after the sale.

It is the case of the Kerala Financial Corporation, from which the appellant had borrowed some money years ago, that the appellant has managed to create all sorts of hurdles all the way ever since recovery proceedings were initiated against him. If we just take a glance at the chequered history of this protracted litigation it can be seen that in the year 2005 the appellant had filed W.P. (C) No. 34808 of 2005 challenging the revenue sale. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court, giving liberty to the appellant to pay off the entire liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme which was in vogue at that time. The appellant did not make use of that opportunity. The matter went upto the Supreme Court which ultimately affirmed the sale. But, still the appellant did not choose to keep quiet.

Yet another attempt was made by him filing W.P.(C) No. 10189 of 2006 which went against him as could be seen from Ext. P6. In that writ petition also the Court had granted him another opportunity to discharge the entire liability. That opportunity was also not availed of. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed finding that there was no illegality in the sale proceeding as alleged by the appellant. It was thereafter that the present writ petition was filed alleging that the sale was vitiated inasmuch as serious fraud had been committed.

According to the appellant, a property which is worth nearly Rupees 1.25 crores was allowed to be knocked off by respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 66.5 lakhs. It is alleged that though fraud was specifically pleaded before the learned Single Judge, it was not properly considered and the learned Judge took the view that this was yet another dilatory tactic adopted by the appellant to frustrate the Kerala Financial Corporation and the auction purchaser to protract the matter further.

The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, took the view that if the appellant wants to challenge the sale on the ground of fraud, that can be done only by way of a review petition before the Supreme Court which had in fact affirmed the sale in the earlier round of litigation. The appellant has come up in challenge of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the above facts and circumstances.

We have heard Sri. T. Krishnan Unni, learned senior counsel for the appellant, at length. We have also heard learned Counsel who appears for respondent No. 1 Kerala Financial Corporation as well as respondent No. 2 the auction purchaser.

After arguing the matter for quite some time, learned senior counsel submits that the appellant will not pursue the matter any further if he is permitted to withdraw not only the writ petition, but the writ appeal as well.

The above prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the Kerala Financial Corporation and the auction purchaser.

However, since it is brought to our notice that the sale has already been confirmed and the auction purchaser put in possession of the property some time back, we are of the view that the prayer made by the learned senior counsel can be granted. We do so. Therefore, the writ petition and writ appeal are dismissed as withdrawn.