Point of Law: High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the respondent banks in not handing over the originals of title deeds of bungalow, E/40, Ayojannagar cooperative housing society Ltd, near Shreyas railway crossing, Vasna, Amdavad to the petitioners and to command the respondents banks to handover the originals of title deeds of the said property deposited by Shailesh Vishwanath Raval respectively with the respondent 2 Bank of Baroda and respondent 3 Central bank of India;

(B) pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, to direct the respondent banks to forthwith handover to the petitioners, the originals of title deeds of bungalow E/40, Ayojannagar cooperative housing society Ltd, near Shreyas railway crossing, Vasna, Amdavad deposited by Shailesh Vishwanath Raval respectively with the respondent 2 Bank of Baroda and respondent 3 Central bank of India upon such terms and conditions as the honourable court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(C) pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, to direct the respondent banks to forthwith take appropriate steps/measures for diligently and expeditiously prosecuting the pending OA 32/2005 filed by respondent 3 Central bank of India before the Debs Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I, Amdavad fior getting it finally adjudicated on merits within a stipulated time frame as may be deemed fit and proper by the honourable court in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(D) to award the costs of the present petition from the respondents;

2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 Bank, i.e. UCO Bank, had undertaken an auction prior to 2007 of the property in question, being Bungalow No.E/40, Ayojannagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs.45.25 lac in response to the proceedings initiated by it under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) read with Rules of 2002. It is the case of the petitioners further that despite selling the property, since the respondent No.1 bank was not executing sale deed in favour of the first petitioner, Special Civil Application No.13502 of 2008 was filed before this Court for seeking direction for executing a sale deed and further reliefs. After service of process, Hon’ble Court after hearing was pleased to dispose of the petition vide order dated 23.12.2009 with a direction including execution of sale deed by respondent No.1 bank in favour of the first petitioner. Despite the said direction, since respondent No.1 bank was not adhering to nor complying with the order of this Court, Misc. Civil Application No.297 of 2010 came to be filed seeking clarification of the aforesaid order, but the Hon’ble Court did not entertain the application and issued a further direction to the respondent No.1 bank to execute sale deed within a stipulated time else, would invite a further consequence and the Misc. Civil Application was disposed of vide order dated 15.2.2010. It is only thereafter the respondent No.1 execute sale deed on 8.3.2010.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the aforesaid circumstance, the respondent banks were creating obstruction with regard to the said immovable property in question and the respondent No.2 and 3 banks were claiming charge over the property as according to them, the erstwhile owner took finance but in any case, the sale deed came to be executed on 8.3.2010, preceded by sale certificate dated 10.2.2007, and the property in question was converted into a liquid cash of Rs.45.25 lac, over which they (respondent Nos.2 and 3 banks) claimed their charge.

2.2