- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3008 WP No. 15821 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15821 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. BEENA PRASAD, W/O. S.N.PADMA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.2, PARK VIEW, III MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHETHAN PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.VIJETHA R.NAIK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CORPORATION BANK, MYSURU VONTIKOPPALU BRANCH, NO.13/1 AND 13/2, TEMPLE ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002. (NOW MERGED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, HAND POST BRANCH AND MANAGER, YEREHALLI (HAND POST), H.D TALUKA - 571 114, MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SATYANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; V/O DATED 20.01.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3008 WP No. 15821 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Chethan Prasad., counsel on behalf of Smt.Vijetha R.Naik., for the petitioner and Sri.Satyanarayana., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.1 to give effect to the representation of the petitioner dated 26.07.2021 produced as Annexure-G by liquidating the Secured Asset since mortgaged in favor of respondent No.1, close the Loan Account of the petitioner by adjusting the amounts due and liable as on the date of the petitioner's Loan Account being classified as NPA. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Counsel Sri.Satyanarayana., for respondent No.1 submits that Secured Asset is under litigation and hence, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3008 WP No. 15821 of 2021 request of the petitioner to sell the property and adjust the same to the loan account cannot be considered. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. By way of reply to this contention, counsel Sri.Chethan Prasad., submits that Secured Asset is Sy.No.18 and the entire property is not under litigation, only 10 Guntas of land is under litigation. He argued by saying that Secured Assets falls under 30 Guntas, which is not under litigation. Counsel therefore submits that an appropriate order may be passed. 5. The contention about falling of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.18 is free of litigation or not is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The law is well settled that the disputed question of fact cannot be investigated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Mandamus cannot be ordered to give effect to the representation for liquidation of the Secured Asset. I decline to exercise power under the writ jurisdiction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3008 WP No. 15821 of 2021 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 22