Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Landowner Who Approached Court With 9 Yrs Delay, Compares Him To 'Rip Van Winkle'

The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a landowner who challenged the bank auction sale of his land on failure to repay the loan, nine years after the sale took place.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Anil H Lad, referred to the short story of Rip Van Winkle, penned by American author Washington Irving in the year 1819, about a Dutch – American who falls asleep and wakes up after twenty years, only to see a changed world, having missed the American revolution, on waking up from deep slumber.

Then it said “The doors of this Court to such Rip Van Winkles is not ajar but closed.”

The petitioner was a guarantor to a credit facility availed by one M/s.V.S.Lad and Sons from Punjab National Bank in 2008. Petitioner's property was offered as security to the loan. On default in payments, the Bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act. A possession notice was issued in October 2013 and finally in March 2014, the Bank put the property to auction. The property was sold in September 2014 to the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner's challenge to the auction sale was rejected by DRT in May 2015. This dismissal was not challenged further but the petitioner started corresponding with the Bank seeking information about the auction. After a gap of 6 years, the Bank communicated the sale certificate, following which the petitioner approached the Court.

The petitioner contended that the Bank never divulged as to when the sale took place and who was the successful bidder. It is only when the sale certificate was communicated to the petitioner, he came to know that the property was sold. Even today, he claimed to be in possession of the property.

The bank opposed the plea saying the petitioner at all times was aware that his property is being sold. It argued that Petitioner had approached the High Court after 9 years solely because his limitation period to prefer an appeal before DRAT is over.

The bench on going through the records noted that petitioner was fully aware of the sale notice issued on 22.09.2014 and he challenged it before DRT. It said the Tribunal had answered every contention which the petitioner now sought to urge.

“At every point, the petitioner has lost his rights, only due to delay and laches. The petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 13-05-2015 before the Tribunal. To-day he cannot, as it is an order of nine years vintage. He, therefore, wants this Court to interfere on an imaginary plea of fraud. Fraud is being projected on the ground that the petitioner was kept in the dark. The petitioner was not kept in the dark, and cannot feign ignorance of what has been happening to his property," the Court held.

Court said it fails to understand how a person, against whose property proceedings are going on, could keep quiet for nine long years and then knock at the doors of the Court on the ground that he hasdno knowledge of what had happened to his property.

“The petition is unentertainable only on the ground of sheer delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The projection of fraud in the pleading is too bleak to get over delay as the petitioner at all times was aware of what has been happening around him qua his property. The petitioner may have had equity on his side when the Tribunal passed the order but, the said equity is lost to the winds by sheer delay on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot wake up from deep slumber and begin to agitate his right as and when he wants, under the umbrella of “fraud vitiates everything”" said the Court and dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Senior Advocate K.Suman for Advocate Jayanth V for petitioner.

Advocate Vignesh Shetty for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

Case Title: Anil H Lad AND Authorised Officer, Punjab and National Bank

Case No: Writ Petition 467 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order