The issuance of a sale certificate is not affected by an attachment subsequent to the sale confirmation.

JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Service Co-Operative Bank. It is before this Court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Joint Registrar (General), Thrissur, through which the request of the petitioner for issuance of a sale certificate was rejected, stating that the property is under attachment by the Tahsildar, Challakudy.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit with reference to Ext.P8 that the attachment is on account of proceedings initiated before the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate Court – I, Thrissur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on account of the fact that the accused in that case, who is none other than the son of the borrower, is absconding. It is submitted that the sale in this case was conducted on 24.11.2017 and the sale was confirmed on 06.02.2020, as can be seen from Ext.P2. It is submitted that the attachment was only on 15.12.2025 and the order of the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate Court – I, Thrissur which led to the attachment was only on 23.10.2025 as can be seen from Ext.P.8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the law laid down in Fathima v. Canara Bank and Others , ILR 2025 Kerala OnLine 183, while this Court cannot be approached for effacing the attachments, the petitioner is entitled to a direction that the sale certificate be issued not withstanding the attachment.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and having perused the order of the full bench in Fathima (supra), I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that Ext.P6 order refusing to issue a sale certificate on account of the subsequent attachment referred to above cannot be sustained. While the petitioner cannot seek effacement of the said attachment in this writ petition, it is clear that the issuance of the sale certificate and its registration are not in any manner affected by the attachment. In other words, after obtaining the sale certificate, it is for the petitioner Bank to approach the concerned court for effacing the attachment.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed.

The 1^st respondent shall issue a sale certificate in Form No.39 by drawing up fresh proceedings. I make it clear that thereafter, it is for the petitioner to apply for effacement/lifting of the attachment referred to above by filing an appropriate application before the Judicial 1^st Class Magistrate Court – I, Thrissur.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-