Allowed

S. Anilkumar v. Punjab & Sind Bank

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024WP/2643/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging a possession cum sale notice and subsequent auction sale under the SARFAESI Act. The court quashed the proceedings held barred by the law of limitation as initiated beyond the statutory period and granted a refund to the successful bidder.

What did the court decide?

The impugned possession cum sale notice and sale certificate are quashed, and the respondent bank is directed to refund the auction proceeds of Rs.78,00,500/- with interest.

S. Anilkumar Vs Punjab & Sind Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2643 OF 2011 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 37029 OF 2010 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 40712 OF 2010 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 6402 OF 2011 (GM-RES)

¶8

IN WP No. 2643/2011

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S. ANILKUMAR S/O M SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO. 785, 20TH CROSS BANASHANKARI II STAGE BANGALORE-560 070.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SMT P C SUNITHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M SIVAPPA., ADVOCATE AND J N MADEVA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

PUNJAB & SIND BANK REPRESENTED BY HIS SENIOR MANGER S B MARKET CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560 053.

¶16

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB & SIND BANK S B MARKET, CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶19

T S CHOWHDARY S/O LATE T HANUMTHAPPA NO.55, DOUBLE ROAD BANGALORE-560 027.

¶20

SMT. CHITRA W/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY BENAHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B G ASHOK KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶23

SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE AND

¶24

SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

¶25

R1 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE POSSESSION CUM SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY TEH R2 DTD 17.3.2010 UNDER ANNEX-C AND THE AUCTION SALE IN FAVOUR OF R4 SMT. CHITRA AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF POSESSION CUM SALE NOTICE.

¶27

IN WP NO. 37029/2010

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI. H K SHIVAYOGI DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶30

(a) SMT H S GEETHA W/O LATE H K SHIVAYOGI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶31

(b) SRI H S KARTHICK S/O LATE H K SHIVAYOGI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶32

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF TOGARSI VILLAGE,

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶34

¶35

SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶36

SRI R MURTHY S/O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT 5/18, DINESH MURTHY NILAYA 9THC ROSS 4TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, (K.P.AGARAHARA) MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 023.

¶37

SRI T GOVINDAN S/O THERVADICHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.53, BDG LINE RANASINGH PET BANGALORE 560 053.

¶38

...PETITIONERS

¶39

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR., ADVOCATE FOR P1(A & B); SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR P2 & P3)

¶40

AND:

¶41

PUNJAB & SIND BANK REPRESENTED BY HIS SENIOR MANAGER S B MARKET CHICKPET, BANGALORE 560 053.

¶42

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK S.B.MARKET, CHICKPET BANGALORE 560 053.

¶43

T S CHOWHDARY S/O LATE T HANUMANTHAPPA NO.55, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027

¶44

(R3 DELETED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.3.11.2022)

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶47

SMT CHITRA

¶48

W/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY BENAHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DSITRICT.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. B G ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

¶51

SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE AND

¶52

SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

¶53

R1 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION - CUM- SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R2 DTD 17.3.2010 VIDE ANNEX-E AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE R4 SMT. CHITRA AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF POSSESSION-CUM-SALE NOTICE.

¶55

IN WP NO. 40712/2010

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

SMT. SUGUNA UJJANI W/O B A LOKESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.49, 1^ST MAIN LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BANGALORE.

¶58

SRI H K BASAVARAJ S/O LATE H KARABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.19, K V LANE, COTTONPET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶59

SMT SHAKUNTALA W/O KALESH PATTANASHETTI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.143, 1ST STAGE, 2ND MAIN 5TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶60

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶61

SMT SAVITHRAMMA DECEASED BY HIS LRS SRI. AMARESH. S W/O LATE N SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.19, K V LANE, COTTONPET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶62

...PETITIONERS

¶63

(BY SRI. B M HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND:

¶65

PUNJAB & SIND BANK REPRESENTED BY HIS SENIOR MANAGER S B MARKET, CHIKPET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶66

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB & SIND BANK S B MARKET CHIKPET BANGALORE-560 053.

¶67

T S CHOWHDARY S/O LATE T HANUMANTHAPPA NO.55, DOUBLE ROAD BANGALORE-560 027.

¶68

SMT CHITRA W/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY BENAHALLI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

¶69

...RESPONDENTS

¶70

(BY SRI. B G ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶71

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶72

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION-CUM-SAWLE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R2 DT.17.3.2010, VIDE ANN-F, & BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE R4 SMT.CHITRA & ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF POSSESSION-CUM SALE NOTICE.

¶73

IN WP NO. 6402/2011

¶74

BETWEEN:

¶75

H S PADMAVATHI W/O B K JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO. 270, 9TH CROSS, TEACHERS LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI,BANGALORE-560 072.

¶76

SMT B R ABHILASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O J C GNANA MURTHY R/A NO. 68/8, KRISHNA BLOCK, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶77

...PETITIONERS

¶78

(BY SRI. G C SHANMUKHA., ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND:

¶80

PUNJAB & SIND BANK REP BY HIS SENIOR MANAGER S.B. MARKET, CHICKPET, BANGALORE- 560 053.

¶81

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB & SIND BANK, S.B. MARKET, CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560 053.

¶82

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶84

T S CHOWHDARY S/O LATE T HANUMANTHAPPA NO. 55, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶85

4. SMT CHITRA

¶86

W/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, BENAHALLI VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.

¶87

...RESPONDENTS

¶88

(BY SRI. B G ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M S VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)

¶89

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION-CUM SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R2 DT.17.3.10 VIDE ANN-E & BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE AUCTION SALE IN FAVOUR OF THE R4 SMT.CHITA & ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PUSUANCE OF THE POSSESSION-CUM-SALE NOTICE.

¶90

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶91

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶92

ORAL ORDER

¶93

The challenge involved in all these petitions is relating to a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by respondent No.1 to take symbolic possession of the subject property, and therefore they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by a common order.

¶94

1.1 The parties are referred to their rankings in W.P.No.40712/2010 for the sake of convenience.

¶95

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶96

¶97

M/s. Dwelling Development Corporation, a partnership concern, is represented by its partner, and the other partners had borrowed a loan from respondent No.1 for the purpose of purchase of the agricultural property and development of the agricultural land and the agricultural land bearing Sy. Nos. 740-A, 741, 744, 743 and 742 measuring about 5 acres and 2 guntas situated at Poonampalli village, Dharmapuri District, Krishnagiri Registration District, Hosur Sub-Registration District, Hosur Taluk was offered as a security towards the repayment of loan by depositing of title deeds.

¶98

2.2 The borrower having defaulted in repayment of the loan, prompted respondent No.1/bank to initiate a suit in O.S.No.2668/1994. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 had sought a judgment and decree against defendant Nos.1 to 8 therein, to pay a sum of Rs.9,41,196/- with interest thereon at 17.5 % per annum and also to order for sale of the mortgaged property prescribed in the schedule therein.

¶99

2.3 During the pendency of the suit, the prayer seeking to order for the sale of the mortgaged property was deleted. The jurisdictional Civil Court decreed the suit on 10.12.2002 directing the defendant therein to pay jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.9,41,196/- with interest at 14% per annum. The decree admittedly has attained finality. The petitioners asserted that the defendants in the said suit had formed a residential layout in the agricultural land, which was offered as security for repayment of the loan, and they purchased the plot in the said

¶100

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶101

residential layout under the registered sale deed executed in their favour.

¶102

2.4 Given the circumstances, respondent No.2 issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to take symbolic possession of the mortgaged property i.e., the agricultural land. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed by subsequent purchasers.

¶103

Smt. P C Sunitha, M Shivappa, J.N Madeva swamy Learned counsels for the petitioner argued as follows:

¶104

3.1 Firstly, the bank, having given up its prayer to order for sale of the mortgaged property, has stopped issuing the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking symbolic possession of the agricultural land.

¶105

3.2 Secondly, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are not applicable to agricultural land as stated under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶106

3.3 Thirdly, the cause of action to recover the loan amount due arose in the year 1994 and therefore, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act in the year 2010 is barred by law of the limitation as stated under Section 36 of the Act.

¶107

Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 argued that upon issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act, the bank conducted sale of the agricultural land in the public auction and in the auction respondent No.4 is a

¶108

10 -

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶110

successful bidder and the sale certificate having been issued and not challenged. The present petition is not maintainable.

¶111

4.1 He further argued that the petitioners who are the subsequent purchasers during pendency of the mortgage, does not come under the definition of the borrower as defined under Section 2(5) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore they have no locus standi to question the sale made in favour of respondent No.4. In support reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6723/2017.

¶112

4.2 He further argued that although the properties were agricultural land at the time of mortgage, they have seized to be the agricultural land and as on the date when the proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the subject lands were converted for non-agricultural purpose and therefore, the provision are applicable to the subject land.

¶113

4.3 Although the prayer for ordering the sale of the mortgaged property was given up by the bank in the suit, however, the mortgage continues to be in force till it is redeemed in the manner known to law.

¶114

Admittedly, a sum of Rs.3 Lakh was sanctioned as loan on 10.7.1986 in favour of M/s Dwelling Development Corporation, a partnership firm. The subject lands were offered as security for repayment of the loan by depositing the original title deeds. The borrower having defaulted in repayment of the

¶115

11 -

¶116

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶117

loan, prompted the respondent-Bank to initiate to file a suit in O.S.No.2668/1994 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,41,196/- with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum compounded quarterly.

¶118

The Jurisdictional Civil Court decreed the suit on 10.12.2002 directing the defendant therein to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.9,41,196/- with interest @ of 14% per annum to the respondent-Plaintiff. Admittedly, the decree has attained finality.

¶119

Given the facts and circumstances, the respondentBank issued a notice dated 17.03.2010 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the borrower to repay the amount of Rs.30,55,330/-, the future cost of interest. Admittedly, as on the date when the loan was sanctioned, the said lands were agricultural lands and the loan was borrowed for development of those lands for residential purposes, and the petitioner-purchaser came to know that there was illegal sale of the property covering the sites purchased by the petitioners.

¶120

The plaint states that the cause of action for filing the suit arose on 10.7.1986, 22.02.1989, and 11.5.1991, on which the defendants in the said plaint executed the documents.

¶121

12 -

¶122

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶123

In the said suit the plaintiff-Bank also sought for sale of the mortgaged property. To satisfy the claims of the plaintiff, Rs. 9,41,196 was claimed against the defendants. Although the plaintiff-bank had prayed for sale of the property which was mortgaged, it was subsequently deleted by the plaintiff, and confined the suit against defendant 1 to 8, jointly and severally on personal responsibility. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 9,41,196/- on 10.12.2002.

¶124

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Sreedhar -vs- M/s Raus Construction Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2023 SC 306 , at para 7.2, has ruled that, only in a case where the secured property is put to use as agricultural land and solely based on the revenue records/Pattadar and once the secured property is put as a security by way of mortgage etc., meaning thereby the same was not treated as agricultural land, such properties cannot be said to be exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶125

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.V. Krishnaiah Setty -vs-Authorised Officer, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore and Ors, AIR 2022 KARNATAKA 23 , has ruled that, the petitioner who purchased the property during the subsistence of mortgage created in favour of petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the sale certificate issued in favour of the successful bidder.

¶126

13 -

¶127

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶128

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. - vs- Mathew K.C., AIR 2018 SC 676 , and has held that a writ petition ought not to be entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.

¶129

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd., and others -vs- City Union Bank Ltd., and other, ILR 2016, KAR 1805 , in exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court only alternate remedy exists and the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when the alternate remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.

¶130

The Madras High Court in the case of R. Armugaswamy -Vs- Authorized Officer, United Bank of India, Chennai and Others, 2017 AIR CC 2997 (MAD), ruled that the deposit of title deeds dated 10.12.2009 made by the petitioner therein in favour of the respondent bank comes within the ambit of definition of Section 2(zb) of the "Security Agreement" of the SARFAESI Act 2002, and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that no security interest was created by the petitioner (therein) to and in favour of the bank.

¶131

14 -

¶132

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶133

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Ramchandra Naik and another -Vs- Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Karwar and others, AIR 2017 Karnataka 120 ruled that with respect to a property under development of residential flats mortgaged with the respondent-bank, the bonafide purchaser purchasing the property after ignoring the fact that the land and building stood mortgaged with the respondent-Bank having no notice by the bank.

¶134

In the instant case, the cause of action to recover the due amount arose in 1991 and the respondent-Bank got issued-

¶135

(i) Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was issued in the year 2010, dated 17.03.2010, to the petitioner for claiming repayment of Rs. 30,55,330/- with an interest of 14% per annum, and;

¶136

ii) in case of default, an authorized officer under Section 13(4) of the Act could take possession of the property and sell the property to recover such an amount.

¶137

16.1 Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 states that the creditor is not entitled to claim a relief in respect of the financial asset unless the same is made within the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶138

15 -

¶139

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶140

“36. Limitation. - No secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)”

¶141

16.2 Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on the title and it states that the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of possession of the immovable properties is 12 years.

¶142

16.3 The cause of action as stated by the respondent-bank arose in the year 1991 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002 came into force in the year 2002, and therefore, the proceedings could have been initiated within 12 years from the date of cause of action to recover the dues from the borrower. In the instant case, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2010, after the expiry of the period of limitation, from when the date of cause of action had arisen.

¶143

In the earlier instituted suit of O.S.No.2668/1994, the respondent-Bank had specifically given up its claim over the sale of the mortgaged property against the dues owed to it. Thus, the respondent-Bank had failed to initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, so as to realise its dues from the sale of the secured asset.

¶144

As regards the issue of maintainability of the instant petition, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contended that a writ petition is not maintainable where there exists an

¶145

NC: 2024:KHC:46882 WP No. 2643 of 2011 C/W WP No. 37029 of 2010 WP No. 40712 of 2010 AND 1 OTHER

¶146

16 -

¶147

alternate remedy, as under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, by way of making an application before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal within forty-five days from the date of issue of the impugned Section 13(4) notice.

¶148

However, in the case at hand, the proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as elucidated above, lack any authority of law, and therefore, the petitioners, who are purchasers of the secured asset have locus standi to invoke the extra-ordinary writ remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, to prevent any attempt at encroachment of the basic human right to hold property, enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution.

¶149

Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶150

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶151

ORDER:

¶152

(i) The writ petitions are allowed . (ii) The impugned possession cum sale notice dated 17.3.2010 issued by the 2^nd respondent and subsequent sale certificate issued in favor of the 4^th respondent stands quashed .

¶153