The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of attachment does not bar the registration of a sale certificate, as the sale of the property, pending the order of attachment, is void only as against the claims enforceable under the attachment and not in respect of other claims, as per Section 64 C.P.C.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner-Bank to register the sale certificate as and when executed by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser by invoking SARFAESI Proceedings pertaining to the property owned by the third respondent namely undivided share of the land measuring an extent of 500 sq.ft out of 9799 sq.ft together with flat bearing No.D3 in the third floor, having a plinth area of 920 sq.ft which includes common area known as Sowbagya Apartments, situated at Plot No.143, Door No.3, Sathiyanarayana St., Venkatapuram, Ambattur, Chennai-53, forming part of Ambattur Village, comprised in Survey No.621/5, Thiruvallur District, in accordance with law.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been averred by the petitioner, inter alia, as follows:-

2-1.The 3rd respondent herein had availed various credit facilities viz., cash credit, term loan and housing loans from the petitioner-Bank and for the due repayment of the loan liability, the 3rd respondent had offered his immovable property as collateral security as evident from Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (MOD), registered as Doc. No. 2899/2008 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur. Since the 3rd respondent had failed and neglected to repay the loan amount, his account had become NPA in the books of the petitioner-Bank. The 3rd respondent and guarantors are jointly and severally due and liable to pay the total outstanding loan amount of Rs.2,07,20,658/- to the petitioner-Bank.

2-2.The petitioner-Bank had filed an application in O.A. No. 10/2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II , Chennai and the Tribunal ordered for attachment of the mortgaged property of the 3rd respondent on 17.01.2013. Despite knowing the fact that the property of the 3rd respondent was mortgaged with the petitioner-Bank as early as in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has deliberately suppressed the said fact and obtained an order of attachment in I.A. No. 12208 of 2011 in O.S. No. 5922 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2-3.The petitioner-bank has initiated SARFAESI proceedings as against the mortgaged property and due to an entry about the attachment order passed by the City Civil Court, Chennai in the said suit, the 1st respondent is refusing to register the sale certificate in favour of auction purchaser. Consequently, the intending auction purchaser is not willing to purchase the mortgaged property, due to attachment and refusal by the 1st respondent/Sub-Registrar to register the document, even though the said attachment is subsequent to the first charge created in favour of the petitioner-Bank by the 3rd respondent as evident from MOD. The petitioner-Bank is a secured creditor holding first charge on the mortgaged property and the 2nd respondent has no legal right or title to attach the same, thereby causing great prejudice to the bank to recover the public money. Hence, the petitioner-Bank has come forward with the present writ petition seeking a direction the 1st respondent to register the sale certificate to be executed by the petitioner-Bank in respect of the subject property.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank submitted that the petitioner-Bank is a secured creditor and the Bank is holding the security on the mortgaged property and the 2nd respondent has no legal right over the subject property, which was mortgaged by the 3rd respondent. In fact, the petitioner-Bank had filed O.A.No.10 of 2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and obtained an order of attachment on 17.01.2013 in respect of the subject property. Further, the petitioner-Bank had filed an application before the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to lift the attachment order passed in I.A.No.12208 of 2011 in O.S.No.5922 of 2011; but the said appl