Arbitrators cannot enforce orders directly on property records without civil court involvement, ensuring due process is upheld.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner stood as a guarantor in connection with a loan granted by the third respondent to purchase a Ford Figo Car bearing registration No.KL-05-AC-9809. The said car was purchased after availing financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- from the third respondent. The said loan amount has to be repaid by way of monthly installments of Rs.6,900/- each. Facts being so, some disputes arose between the lonee and the finance company regarding the repayment of installment. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, if any dispute arose in connection with the transaction between the lonee and finance company, the matter has to be forwarded to the sole arbitrator appointed by the finance company. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the copy of agreement had not been handed over to the petitioner or lonee by the finance company and hence, the petitioner is not in a position to produce the same before this court. The sole arbitrator issued an order to repossess the vehicle and on the basis of the said order, the hired goondas of the finance company tried to repossess the vehicle. Hence, owner of the vehicle Mr.Mujeeb Mon approached the District Court, Ernakulam by filing CMA No.577 of 2023 against the repossession of the vehicle on the basis of order of the sole arbitrator and the said matter is pending before the District Court, for consideration.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of the property having an extent of 3.24 ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.17/8/2/1/2 of Chengamanad village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. Recently, when the petitioner applied for non-encumbrance certificate of the said property in the office of second respondent, a non encumbrance certificate dated 20.6.2023 has been issued to the petitioner. On perusal of the said document, it is understood that there is an order of injunction/attachment by the finance company against the property of petitioner on the basis of the order of sole arbitrator appointed by the finance company against the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of India and this honourable court.

3. Thereafter, on enquiry in the office of first respondent, it was also understood that there is an endorsement in the revenue records regarding the said attachment and injunction on the basis of the sole arbitrator from the office of the first respondent. Apart from the said attachment schedule, no copy of order has been issued to the petitioner by any of the respondents till date.

Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the entry regarding the attachment of the sole arbitrator appointed by the third respondent against the property of petitioner covered by exhibit P1 in the village records and the records of the office of sub registrar.

2. Direct the second respondent to remove the entry in the exhibit P2 encumbrance certificate regarding the attachment of the sole arbitrator in the subject matter.

3. Declare that the sole arbitrator or any of the arbitrator in the state has no right or authority to execute or enforce the order of the arbitrator in the village records and the records of the sub registrar through the state missionary like the sub registrar and the village officer without the due process of law by an order of the competent civil court in the subject matter. 4. Such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. And

5. Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents produced along with writ petition”.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Divisio