- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD WRIT PETITION NO.28435 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: VISHALAKSHI W/O. SANJEEVA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOOLAJE HOUSE, KOKRADY VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 242 …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SADASHIVA S/O. SANJEEVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.1-76 HOLLAJE MANE, KOKRADY BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 242 2. GIRISH S/O. KORAGAPPA MADIVALA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NADAYI, SHIRLALU SULKERIMOGARU SHIRLALU VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 217 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER MANAGER (BRANCH) BHARATH BANK CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LIMITED UDUPI BRANCH, VASUKI TOWER NEXT TO VISHWAS COMMERCIAL BUILDING NEAR TALUK OFFICER OPP. DISTRICT COURT UDUPI-575 101 A MULTI-STATE SCHEDULED BANK REGISTERED UNDER MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1984 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. R. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED IN CRIMINAL MIS. CASE NO.253/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., MANGALURU D.K., VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO HANDOVER THE POSSESSION OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY OPENING THE LOCKS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the present writ petition calls in question the order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Crl. Mis. Case No.253/2022 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mangaluru, D.K., vide Annexure-A. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was an unauthorised occupant of land measuring 0.09 cents in Sy. No.79/1P1 situated at Kokradi Village, Belthangady Taluk, where she had constructed a house and was residing therein. She had applied for regularisation of her occupation. The Tahsildar, Belthangady, upon considering her application, issued a Hakku Pathra/Grant Certificate in her favour on 23.01.2018. Thereafter, she applied for a loan with SCDCC Bank for renovation of the house. The Bank sanctioned the loan for the said purpose and she was regularly paying the installments. When the matter stood thus, she came to know of the impugned order dated 13.10.2023, pursuant to which she was evicted from the house. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 3. In that light, Sri Chethan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Kethan Kumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings before the trial Court and that the Hakku Pathra stands in her name. He therefore contends that the impugned order is bad in law and seeks allowing of the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Bank submits that a loan was granted to respondent No.1, the son of the petitioner, in the year 2018. As respondent No.1 failed to pay the installments, respondent No.3-Bank initiated necessary proceedings and filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking possession of the property. The trial Court, after considering the application filed by the Bank, passed an order dated 05.08.2023 in Crl. Misc. Case No.253/2022, directing - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 delivery of possession of the property to respondent No.3-Bank. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.3-Bank has already taken possession of the property. The present petition was filed on 12.12.2023 and no interim order has been granted. 5. Though an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, she has neither availed herself of the said remedy nor approached this Court at the appropriate stage. Further, there is no interim order operating in favour of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the cause title indicates that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are residing at the same address. It can therefore be inferred that though they are residing together, the present petition has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings and to stall the action initiated by the Bank. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the Bank had already taken - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010662642023 NC: 2026:KHC:51274 WP No. 28435 of 2023 possession of the property in the year 2023 itself. In view of the same, the present petition, at this juncture, does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (B.PRAMOD) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3