- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23538 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. ZAMEELA W/O SRI B. ABDUL KHADER. AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-112, BEYLAR HOUSE, BAIKAMBAPADY. DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST.-575 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CANARA BANK A SCHEDULED BANK, WITHIN THE MEANING OF BANKING REGULATION ACT 1948 AND CARRYING ON BUSINESS INTERALIA HAVING ITS BRANCH AT HAMPANKATTA. MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 2. MOHAMMED NAWAZ @ MOHAMMED NAWAZ ISMAIL S/O LATE ISNAIL @ ISMAIL MASTIKATTE. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. R/AT DOOR NO.19-84/14. ISMAIL MASTER COMPOUND. MASTIKATTE ULLALA, MANGALURU TALUK. D.K. DISTRICT-575 020. 3. PRAKASH, S/O ANNUGOWDA. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. R/AT 7-64, SHIVATHA MATTA, KANCHANA, BAJATHUR, D.K. DISTRICT-575 241. 4. ABDUL RASHEED S/O IBRAHIM. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R/AT NO.18-78, BHAVAIN COMPOUND. SUNDARI BAGH, MASTHIKATTE ULLALA. MANGALURU TALUK. D.K. DISTRICT-575 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025 PASSED IN S.A. NO.400/2025 BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 31.05.2024 AND 18.07.2024 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO.121/2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURES A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts original ownership of 12 cents in Sy.No.50/1P of Baikampady village, Mangaluru Taluk [the subject property], and the petitioner contends that the second respondent, misusing power of attorney executed in trust and subject to contract, has caused the transfer of the subject property to the fourth respondent, who has caused a further transfer in favour of the third - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 respondent and that this respondent has mortgaged the subject property with the first respondent resulting with the order dated 31.05.2024 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'the SARFAESI Act']. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 31.05.2024 in SA No.400/2024 with the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 Karnataka at Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the Tribunal, by this order, has rejected the application. It is undisputed that after the order dated 31.05.2024 and the confirmation thereof with dismissal of the application in SA No.400/2024 by the Tribunal, the first respondent has not taken possession. 3. Sri S. Rajashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vinay Bhat, the learned counsel for the first respondent, are heard on whether there must be any interference. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 Sri.S.Rajashekar submits that only interference that the petitioner would seek is for calling upon the first respondent to defer taking physical possession of the subject property or bringing this property to sale for some reasonable time so that the petitioner can tender the amount due or effectively pursue the pending proceedings against the private respondent for vindication of her case. 4. Sri Vinay Bhat submits that as of 07.08.2025 the due was in a sum of Rs.31,68,752/-, and if the petitioner offers this amount and further amounts as would be payable, the loan availed with the first respondent will be discharged and the documents kept subject to the outcome in the pending proceedings between the petitioner and the respondents or any interim order in such proceedings. The learned counsel emphasizes that this Court may grant only such indulgence which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 would be reasonable given the circumstances of the case. 5. These submissions are considered, and this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is persuading remedies as against the respondents, including the borrower [the third respondent] for vindication of title to the property, must have a reasonable opportunity to offer not just Rs.31,68,752/- but every such other amount as would be payable on the date the petitioner offers the amount due and that the first respondent must defer proceedings to recover possession or to bring the property for sale for a reasonable time. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to offer Rs.31,68,752/- and every such other amount towards interest and expenses as would be informed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 first respondent by 30.10.2025 calling upon the first respondent not to take measures to recover possession or bring the subject property to sale until then. [B] If the petitioner offers the amount as is required by the first respondent for closure of its account by 30.10.2025, the first respondent shall receive the same and acknowledge discharge of the loan but retain the original documents deposited subject to the orders in that regard in the pending proceedings between the petitioner and the first respondent. [C] It is needless to observe that if the petitioner does not avail the liberty, the first respondent must proceed under law to secure the subject property and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue remedy as would be available in law but without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37181 WP No. 23538 of 2025 seeking exclusion of the time that is spent in prosecuting this petition or the time that is extended by this Court. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr