The court determined that a bank must deliver possession of auctioned property to the purchaser, and failure to do so necessitates a refund of the purchase price and interest, regardless of available alternate remedies.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2025 Both these review petitions are filed seeking review of the judgment dated 11.06.2025 in WP(C) No.19669 of 2022. RP No.828 of 2025 is filed by the respondent Bank, whereas RP No.1190 of 2025 is filed by party respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition.

2. By the judgment under review this Court taking note of the inability of the Bank to hand over vacant possession of the property to the petitioner who is the auction purchaser in a SARFAESI proceedings, even after the whole of the purchase amount was paid as early as on 18.04.2007, this Court directed the respondent Bank to reimburse the amount of Rs.6,10,000/- received from the petitioner on 18.04.2007 with interest at the rate of 8% from 18.04.2007 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. It is aggrieved by the said direction that these review petitions are filed.

3. Let me first consider RP No.828 of 2025 filed by the respondent Bank, wherein it is contended that the writ petitioner has approached the Munsiff Court, Kollam filing OS No.1025 of 2013 for seeking a direction to the Bank for registration of Ext.P1 and delivery of possession of the property. The suit was dismissed as per Annexure A2 order relegating the writ petitioner to approach the statutory authority under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act, 2002’). Having suffered Annexure A2 judgment the petitioner ought not have moved the writ petition without availing the alternate remedy available to him, and since he had not moved the DRT as directed in Annexure A2 judgment within the time stipulated as per the Act and the Rules the claim has become time barred and it is only thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed. It is further contended that the writ petitioner being an ‘aggrieved person’ who has participated in the sale, his remedy is to bring his grievance before the appellate forum under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, and the said aspect has already been declared by the Apex Court inAgarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank and Others [2017 (4) KLT 1131]. Further relying on Annexure A3 to A5 judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank would submit that when an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition cannot be maintained.

4. In RP No.1190 of 2025 filed by the party respondents, who are the borrowers, also, similar contentions were raised.

5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

6. The essential contention raised in this RP is regarding the alternate remedy available to the writ petitioner. The review petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court inAgarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd.’s, wherein the Apex Court has held that the auction purchaser is one such person who is aggrieved by the action of the secured creditor in forfeting their money and therefore, the auction purchaser falls within the expression of ‘any person’ as specified in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and hence is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor (Bank) to before the DRT by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [(2020) 19 SCC 681] to contend that since the writ petition has been filed beyond the statutory period fixed for filing a petition under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act the writ Court cannot consider a claim raised by the writ petitioner which is now already a barred claim.

7. As stated earlier this is a case where the petitioner participated in the auction co