Writ petition questioning improper pasting of a mortgage sale possession notice on petitioner's property. Bank admitted inadvertent error and removal. Court found no remaining cause of action.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.21062 of 2016
05. 06.09.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned c
ounsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2- Bank.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the possession notice da
ted 19.10.2016 (Annexure-6) issued by the opposite party nos.1 and 2-Bank for sale of the mo
rtgaged property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property described
in the possession notice is neither owned by the petitioner nor she has mortgaged said proper
ty in favour of the opposite party nos.1 and 2-Bank. It is further submitted that the petition
er is the owner of Plot No.807/6929, over which she has a residential building. It is submitt
ed that though in the possession notice the mortgaged property bears Plot No.807/2106, the Ban
k authority have pasted the possession notice on the boundary wall of the petitioners residenc
e. It is therefore submitted that since the petitioner has not mortgaged her property in quest
ion, the action of the opposite party nos.1 and 2-Bank in pasting the possession notice on the
boundary wall of the petitioner is improper and illegal.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2-Bank fairly submits
that due to inadvertent over-sight the possession notice has been wrongly pasted on the bound
ary wall of the petitioner though the same relates to the land under Plot No.807/2106, which i
s the mortgaged property in question. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank that
realizing the mistake, the same has already been removed.
In view of such submission of the learned counsel for the opposite par
ty nos.1 and 2-Bank, the petitioner has no further cause of action.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
S.C. Parija, J.
..
D. Dash, J.
H
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the pasting of a possession notice on the wrong property requires adjudication when the bank admits the mistake and confirms its removal.
Petitioner
Bank
S.C. Parija
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court