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 O