- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 377 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SVR GREEN WOODS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD NO.DRB3/SOR/633/2021-2022 DT 18-03-2022 REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ZONE-3 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT NO 49 & 50, 4TH CROSS 17TH MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 95 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR R ASHWATH NARAYAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER RECOVERY BRANCH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CIRCLE SASTRA CENTER NO. 26-27 RAHEJA TOWERS M G ROAD, BENGALURU 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE EMAIL REPRESENTATION DTD 29.11.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DTD 29.11.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 M/S SVR GREEN WOODS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION BEARING REG NO. DEB3/SOR/633/2021-22 AS PER ANNX-N. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representations at Annexures-'M' and 'N', both dated 29.11.2023. 2. The representations made by the petitioner to the respondent - Bank narrates that the land owners have created a mortgage and obtained loan from Bank of Baroda. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made purchase subsequent to the mortgage and was not aware of the mortgage transactions. 4. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to the respondent to accept One Time Settlement (OTS) offer to amicably resolve the issue. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 5. Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the registered mortgage was on 21.04.2016 and the Sale Deeds of the petitioner were subsequent to such date. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner had approached Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in S.A.No.410/2022 came to be disposed off on 31.01.2024, in which all aspects, including prior mortgage as well as the subsequent Sale Deeds of the petitioner have been looked into. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein has also filed O.S.No.6044/2024 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against the respondent Bank seeking for the relief as regards the order passed in S.A.No.410/2022 as not binding on the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the said suit that is pending. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that all these issues require to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 raised before the appropriate Forum if the petitioner seeks to resist the same, viz., Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 9. I.A.No.1/2025 has been filed by the impleading applicant who states that the impleading applicant is the purchaser of the property in public auction and, as title has flowed from the Bank, their interests ought to be given priority, as the petitioner has purchased the property subsequent to the registered mortgage. 10. Heard both sides. 11. At the time of hearing of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the said order passed in S.A.No.410/2022, the petitioner has approached Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). It is further submitted that the matter is still to come before the DRAT. 12. Taking note of the subsequent events as well, it is to be noticed that the relief to the petitioner could be granted only if the petitioner were to assail the subsequent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 sale in favour of the auction purchaser. All such aspects are beyond the purview of the present proceedings. The contentions of petitioner require adjudication and recording of factual findings, which cannot be made in the present proceedings. 13. Taking note that the petitioner has challenged the order necessary under Section 18 before DRAT and noticing the subsequent developments, including auction, vesting of rights in the auction purchaser and the relief sought for in the present petition being only for consideration of representations as well as the relief relating to the offer under the OTS Scheme, the grant of any substantive relief cannot be considered in the present proceedings. 14. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off without entering into the merits and leaving open all contentions of parties as is permissible to be raised in the proceedings before the DRAT. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24991 WP No. 377 of 2024 15. In light of disposal of the writ petition itself, no order needs to be passed on the impleading application and is accordingly disposed of, while making it clear that the petitioner is to array the impleading applicant in all of its proceedings challenging the auction of respondent Bank, as the impleading applicant is vested with certain rights consequent to the issuance of Sale Certificate. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would make efforts for amicable resolution of the dispute. 17. It is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank which may be looked into, as is permissible in accordance with the policies of the Bank. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE DHA/VGR