JUDGMENT

The petitioner Society had made fixed deposits with the 5^th respondent, Kerala State Rubber Co-operative Limited (RUBCO). Even after the maturity period of the fixed deposit the 5th respondent did not refund the amount. This compelled the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings, which culminated in an award directing the 5^th respondent to pay the amount to the petitioner with interest. The award was brought to execution by the petitioner. As the execution proceedings were getting unduly delayed, the petitioner approached this Court vide Writ Petition (C) No.12976 of 2014 and obtained Ext.P4 judgment, directing the 3^rd respondent - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies(General), Kannur to take up E.P. No.539 of 2012 and complete the proceedings within four months. The 3^rd respondent failed to comply with the direction and the petitioner initiated Contempt of Court proceedings. The 3^rd respondent submitted that the execution is being proceeded with and produced certain documents in proof to prove that fact. Based on the submission, the Contempt of Court Case was closed. Thereafter, Ext.P10 was issued by the third respondent stating that the petitioner has to point out the immovable property to be attached, since the property of the 5^th respondent has already been attached by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank in a proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). As the execution proceedings came to a grinding halt because of the stand adopted by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court again in W.P.(C)No.19879 of 2018. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“6…...However, it obtains no justification for the 4^th respondent to stop execution proceedings merely because the State Co-operative Bank has initiated action against the property in question under the SARFAESI Act. In fact, it is incumbent upon the said Authority to continue proceedings because, even assuming the State Co-operative Bank has a first charge over the property of the 5^th respondent, any amount that may be obtained in surplus to their dues after sale of the property under the SARFAESI Act can certainly be claimed by the petitioner, for which purpose the execution petition will have to be continued.

In the afore circumstances, I set aside Exts.P3 and P4 and direct the 4^th respondent to continue further proceedings for execution of the Award in ARC No.84/2010 in terms of law, subject to any better charges or encumbrances that may be claimed on the property of the 5^th respondent by the other creditors, including the State Co-operative Bank.”

2. The petitioner sought review of the judgment which culminated in Ext.P12 order closing the Review Petition, but leaving petitioner’s liberty to act in terms of the directions in Ext.P11 judgment and to approach this Court again if the competent authority does not perform its statutory objections. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P14 communication of the third respondent, requiring the petitioner to produce documents like Valuation Certificate, Site Plan, Encumbrance Certificate etc. pertaining to the property sought to be attached.

3. Heard Adv.S.M.Prasanth, for the petitioner, Adv.S.Ajith, for the 5^th respondent and Adv.Riyal Devassy, the Government Pleader. Although elaborate contentions are urged, in so far as this Court has issued specific directions in Exts.P4 and P11 judgments, there cannot be a different approach in the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no positive outcome can be expected from the proceedings pending before the 3^rd respondent since, till date, other than causing hurdles to the execution by raising unwarranted objections, no positive action is forthcoming from the said authority. It is submitted that, unlike the usual execution proceedings, in the instant case the money