IMPORTANT POINT
Under RDDBFI Act, 1993, mortgagor loses his right of redemption in respect of mortgaged property on sale being confirmed in favour of auction purchaser.

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—As the aforementioned Writ Petition and O.P.(DRT) involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.30651/2017, which is filed by Sri.Ratheesh M.N, who is stated to be the auction purchaser of property comprising of 18.200 cents in Sy.No.648/7/3 of Thrikkakkara North Village, pursuant to a public-e-auction conducted in accordance with the Recovery certificate dated 9.9.2005 issued consequent to the final order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.6/2005.

2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these cases is that, one A.R.Sajan [borrower] and Sri.M.V.Shaji [guarantor], who are arrayed as respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.(C).No.30651/2017, had availed a loan from the Lord Krishna Bank [subsequently taken over by the HDFC Bank, the 5th respondent] by depositing the title deeds in respect of the property aforementioned. Consequent to a default committed by the said persons, in repaying the amounts due to the bank, the bank filed O.S.No.39/1999 against the said defaulters, for recovering the loan amounts. The original of the title deeds, pertaining to the property that was mortgaged with the bank, was produced before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, in connection with the aforesaid suit. It would appear that, in the suit, a consent decree was passed on 3.3.2000, where under, the 6th and 7th respondents were directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,04,273/- together with future interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the suit till realisation thereof. An amount of Rs.27,736.50 was also directed to be paid to the plaintiff by way of costs.

3. For executing the decree, O.A.No.6/2005 was filed by the bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 read with Section 31A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [hereinafter referred to as “the RDDBFI Act”], for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in terms of the decree. It would appear that by 23.11.2004, the date of filing the said O.A., the decree amount had already swelled to Rs.18,03,552/-. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed the final order in O.A.No.6/2005 on 10.6.2005, directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate in terms of the decree in O.S.No.39/1999 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam for recovery of the sum of Rs.18,03,552/- with interest on the sum of Rs.17,75,815.50 @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from 23.11.2004 till realisation from the defendants personally and by the sale of decree ‘A’ schedule property. The applicant bank was also allowed to recover its costs from the defendants and by sale of decree ‘A’ schedule property. The Recovery Certificate subsequently issued on 9.9.2005 quantifies the total amount due from the 6th and 7th respondents as Rs.20,14,044.52.

4. It is for recovery of the said amount, and the interest accrued thereon, that a sale proclamation was issued by the Recovery Officer of the DRT on 28.10.2013. Immediately thereafter, the 6th and 7th respondents filed O.P. (DRT).No.4444/2013 challenging the sale proclamation. By a judgment dated 16.12.2013, this Court dismissed the said O.P.(DRT), and relegated the parties to the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. For reasons best known to the said respondents, they chose not to prefer the Appeal.

5. The property was thereafter sold on 24.2.2014 to Sri.Ratheesh M.N., the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.30651/2017. When faced with the situation where steps were being taken for delivery of possession to the auction purchaser, the defaulting respondents approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.15366/2015, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge referring to the earlier judgment of this Court in O.P.(DRT).No.4444/2013, and observing that their remedy lay in pursuing a statutory appeal before the DRAT.