Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
AHAMMED BASHEER.K.A – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH INDIAN BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44311 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. Jahangeer
For the Respondents: P.A. Augustine (Areekattel)
The court affirms that failure by the petitioner to comply with court orders results in dismissal of the writ petition.
Headnote:This judgment concerns WP
(C) NO. 44311 OF 2025, where the petitioner contends he was not involved in a loan transaction secured by forgery. The court highlighted that the petitioner was informed about the e-auction of the property due to the bank's outstanding dues. After a sequence of legal actions regarding the property's sale, the court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner failed to comply with interim orders. Key issues discussed included the validation of loan agreements and respondent banks' actions. The court held that it would not intervene in the dismissal of earlier proceedings concerning the petitioner's complaints. The final order states, 'Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petitioner’s involvement in the loan transaction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court's reasoning regarding the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026)
The petitioner has a case that he is neither a party to the loan transaction nor a guarantor or surety. The petitioner's sister's son and his father together with the Branch Manager of the first respondent Bank, availed a loan by offering the petitioner's property as security by forging the petitioner's signature. Upon coming to know of the said act, the petitioner filed CMP No.2594/2025 before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kasaragod, and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant.
2. In the meanwhile, the Bank has issued Ext.P2 e- auction notice dated 4.11.2025 for sale of the immovable property, through which it has been informed that the auction would be conducted on 26.11.2025 for recovery of the total outstanding amount of ₹4,48,62,915.70/- as on 03.11.2025. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay the amount in instalments and regain his property. The relief sought was to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the defaulted instalments, regularise the loan account, and restore physical possession of the secured asset taken by the Bank.
3. The counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed, against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(Crl.)No.905/2025, which was disposed of on 25.07.2025. The property was put up for sale on 26.11.2025 and, in the meantime, the petitioner again approached this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to remit ₹1,12,15,728.75/- (25% of the outstanding amount of ₹4,48,62,915/-) within 10 days. It was made clear that, in the meantime, the sale could proceed, but confirmation of sale and issuance of the sale certificate were stayed by this Court.
4. However, the sale was not conducted due to the absence of bidders. It is now submitted by the learned counsel that a fresh sale notice has been issued for sale of the property on 18.02.2026. Since the petitioner has not complied with the interim order of this Court and as W.P.(Crl.)No.905/2025 was disposed of, which was filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint filed by him, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
