Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records of the respondent culminating with their Form No.7 in R.R.A.No.16/2001-2002 notice dated 23.04.2012 fixing the date of auction sale of petitioner's immovable properties on 11.06.2012 and quash the same and also to direct the respondent to cancel the mortgage and return the documents of title to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.C.M.Sundaravadhanam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the auction notice and inter alia contending as following:- (1) Petitioner admits that he has executed a mortgage deed dated 20.11.1999 with the Nemily Co-operative Primary Land Development Bank, Nemili, the then North Arcot Ambedkar District, then known as North Arcot District and presently known as Vellore District. Petitioner states that he is the owner of the following properties:- “(i) measuring 52 cents in S.No.30/2A, (ii) measuring 1.85 Acres in S.No.396/2, (iii) measuring 1.40 Acres in S.No.398/1 and (iv) measuring 3.26 Acres in S.No.397/1 together with the terraced building constructed thereon measuring 2612-1/2 sq. ft., all situated in Tammampatti Village, previously Authur Taluk, presently Gangavalli Taluk, Salem District” (2) In the written argument, the petitioner has stated that the respondent bank agreed to lend Rs.8.45 lakhs to the petitioner for purchasing machinery, like Flour Mill, Pulvariser, Disintegration Pounding Machine, etc. In this regard, a registered mortgage deed was executed as above. According to the petitioner, the respondent bank did not pay even a single rupee at the time of applying the loan. (3) Petitioner also pleads that at the time of applying for loan, the respondent bank obtains several blank documents and signatures on stamp papers. On the basis of the same, they are making a false claim that they sanctioned Rs.8.45 lakhs. (4) Petitioner also states in the written arguments as follows:- “7. Such being the case, the petitioner had received a letter from the respondent dated 12.12.2001 thereby stating that as if he had availed the said loan on 20.11.1999 and that as if he had given a power of attorney to one Mr. (4) Petitioner also states in the written arguments as follows:- “7. Such being the case, the petitioner had received a letter from the respondent dated 12.12.2001 thereby stating that as if he had availed the said loan on 20.11.1999 and that as if he had given a power of attorney to one Mr. Natarajan on 20.03.2000 and that as if the said Natarajan had repaid a sum of Rs.10,000/- only and that there was no further payment by him and that therefore I was liable to pay the said loan amount to the respondent. 8. Immediately upon receipt of the said letter dated 12.12.2001 from the respondent, the petitioner had given a letter on 03.01.2002 thereby stating that I had never received the said loan amount and that he did not give any power to the said Natarajan and that any such transactions with Natarajan, shall not be binding on the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had also requested the respondent to return all his documents of title including all the blank signed papers and documents obtained by them from him at the time of creating the mortgage. 9. Despite receipt of my aforesaid letter dated 03.01.2002, the respondent did not return the documents of title or the blank signed papers and documents obtained from the petitioner and they had kept silent for more than a year. Thereafter, by their letter dated 11.03.2003, the respondent had given a notice for sale of moveables, though the said Masala Powder Factory was not functioning in the property as even admitted by the respondent in their above said letter dated 12.12.2001.” (5) In short the plea of the petitioner is that no amount was released by the respondent bank to the petitioner as alleged in respect of the registered mortgage and the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount. (6) Petitioner also pleads that the bank has not taken steps as a defaulter for long number of years. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation. On the above plea, the writ petition is filed challenging the auction notice issued on 23.4.2012. 4. In response, the respondent bank filed a counter-affidavit with supporting documents. (6) Petitioner also pleads that the bank has not taken steps as a defaulter for long number of years. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation. On the above plea, the writ petition is filed challenging the auction notice issued on 23.4.2012. 4. In response, the respondent bank filed a counter-affidavit with supporting documents. According to the respondent, there is no dispute that the mortgage was executed and along with the mortgage deed, petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one R. Natarajan, registered as document No.4/2007 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Nemili. The respondent bank states that based on loan sanctioned and the Power of Attorney executed, the amounts were released for purchase of machinery for which vouchers and payment receipts have been filed along with the typedset of papers. In respect of some of machineries, the payments were made to the supplier directly and the vouchers have also been signed. 5. It is also stated that the power of attorney paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque which was dishonoured by the bank. The bank did not take immediate steps. However, in 2009, the petitioner gave a letter on 23.2.2009 acknowledging to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and that letter is witnessed by the daughter and wife of the petitioner. 6. Respondent bank pleads that in spite of availing the loan for installation of the machinery through the power of attorney agent and in spite of undertaking to pay the money, the petitioner failed to repay the amount to settle the claim of the to the bank. Therefore, the respondent bank is entitled to auction the mortgaged property. 7. Despite the plea taken by the petitioner that no amount has been released consequent to the mortgage of the property, several documents are produced before this court to show that payment was in fact made for purchase of machinery and acknowledged by the petitioner or his authorised agent. 8. In such view of the matter, the court is unable to consider the prima facie plea of the petitioner that no amount was paid by the respondent bank as there is no dispute that the mortgage was executed by the petitioner, the power of attorney executed by the petitioner has been registered before the Sub Registrar and on the basis of the same, the amounts were released by the respondent bank. 9. 9. In view of the above, if the petitioner is disputing the very mortgage and the loan, the petitioner has to work out his remedy before appropriate forum and not before this Court, as all the factual aspects raised by the petitioner are disputed by the respondent Bank. 10. One other plea taken by the petitioner is that the mortgage due is invalid stating that the bank at Nemili does not fall within the notified town. This statement is not correct. The loan is given by the Nemili Cooperative Bank, North Arcot Ambedkar District as could be seen from the endorsement on the mortgage deed and G.O.Ms.No.423 Law dated 29.8.1994 specifically includes Nemili at Serial No.2. Relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.No.423 dated 29.8.1994 reads as follows:- “Name of the Districts Name of the towns 1. x x x 2. North Arcot-Ambedkar 6.K.V.Kuppam, 7. Kasinayakanpatti 8. Nemili” Therefore, the said plea that the mortgage is invalid prima facie is not correct. 11. Since the issue raised in the writ petition is disputed questions of fact both with the petitioner as well as the respondent, the court is not inclined to interfere with the auction proceedings. Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with relevant provision of law. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.