The court emphasized the importance of timely action and clean hands in seeking relief, and condemned the petitioner's conduct in delaying the claim and possession of the property.

V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in respect of proceeding DRC.No.322/2015 (Old DRC No.178/2006) O.A.No.621/2000 Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, on the file of the 1st respondent dated 08.08.2017 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner's averments is, one C.K.Ramjee, had obtained loan from Punjab National Bank, Lux Church Road, Chennai, for his business purpose, for which, the petitioner's husband P.Narayanasamy stood as a guarantor to him and handed over the title deeds of his property bearing Survey No.35/2 at Pallavaram Village measuring an extent of 1345 Sq.fts which was purchased by the petitioner through a sale deed dated 18.09.1995 vide Document No.4660/1995 registered at Sub-Registrar Office, Pallavaram, as collateral security for the loan borrowed by C.K.Ramjee.

3. The petitioner would submit that the borrower namely C.K.Ramjee did not pay the loan amount, turned as a defaulter in payment, and subsequently died. Thereafter, the bank initiated recovery proceedings and the petitioner's husband alone was defending the case. The petitioner further would allege that her husband was not in a stable mind and due to his mental illness, he is taking treatment even on the date of filing this Writ Petition. Hence, he could not defend the case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I effectively.

4. The petitioner would further submit that she was not aware of the above said proceedings, since her husband alone contested the case during the pendency of the said proceedings and further he was mentally ill when the proceedings were going on before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I. Hence, she has averred that she had no chance to know the subsequent proceedings and had no knowledge and chance to contest the above proceedings in O.A.No.621 of 2000 dated 06.03.2006, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I.

5. The petitioner would also submit that during the recovery proceedings, her husband's property, mortgaged as security was brought for auction on 26.02.2007 with upset price of Rs.11,25,000/-, in which the third respondent herein was the successful bidder and he purchased the same. On the date of filing this Writ petition, the property is worth more than a crore and now the bank has underestimated the value of the property and sold it for a lesser amount. Subsequently, sale certificate was also issued on 28.07.2006 for the above said property vide Certificate No.178/2006. After she came to know about the same, the petitioner filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II through her counsel to set aside the order dated 14.05.2007. She further alleges that due to the ineffective steps taken by her counsel, it was not properly represented before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II. In the meanwhile, the third respondent filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.14373 of 2017 seeking police protection for eviction and the same was allowed by this Court on 12.06.2017.

6. The petitioner also contended that she is an illiterate and belongs to economically weaker section, and she is having right to livelihood and residence. Therefore, contended that she has no other efficacious remedy except approaching this Court. At the time of admission, while ordering notice to the respondents, this Court granted a stay on 10.08.2017 in W.M.P.No.22618 of 2017. The third respondent who is the successful bidder and purchased the property in the auction sale, has filed an application in W.M.P.No.23710 of 2017 to vacate the stay granted as early as 10.08.2017, for which, the petitioner has filed her counter on 30.08.2017.

7. Brief averments stated in the affidavit filed by the third respondent in support of the vacate stay petition are that the property at No.23A, Munusamy Maistry Street, Essa Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043 was brought to public auction on 26.02.2007, in furtherance of the proceedings in O.A.No.621/2000 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in which the third respondent par