JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to issue a direction to the respondents to re-convey the properties mentioned in Exts.P4 and P5 to the petitioners, and to quash Exts.P4 and P5, and for other consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are husband and wife. They are owners of properties admeasuring 4 cents and 3 cents respectively, situate in survey Nos.643/6 and 642/6 of Piravanthoor Village. Ext.P3 certificate issued by the 5th respondent shows that the aforesaid properties are mortgaged to the Pathanapuram Block Housing Co-operative Society, the 4th respondent herein. 3. Petitioners have availed a loan from the 4th respondent society for constructing a house in the aforesaid properties by mortgaging the properties specified above. According to the petitioners, due to various financial constraints, the loan could not be repaid, and they had to shift to Kannur. They returned only to their native place in the year 2009. Petitioners came to know that as per Ext.P4 order dated 11.06.2004, the 2nd respondent has confirmed the sale of the properties on account of the recovery of loan amounts from the petitioners. From Ext.P4, it is clear that the property was purchased by the 6th respondent on 02.04.2004, for a sum of Rs.1,70,863/-, evident from Ext.P5 sale certificate. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the mutation of the properties are not effected and has produced Exts.P6 and P7 copy of the Thandaper register to establish the same. 4. That apart, it is submitted that, the 1st petitioner was allotted with 4 cents of property as per Ext.P1 settlement deed, in which a life interest is created in favour of his father, Madhavan Pillai, and his mother Sarojini Amma. Even though Madhavan Pillai expired, Sarojini Amma is still alive, and therefore, it is evident that the entire sale proceeding is illegal, unjust and void. It is also contended that, on account of amounts due from the 1st petitioner to Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund, the 4 cents of property belonging to the 1st petitioner was attached for realizing the amounts due in the above behalf. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the sale concerned, viewed in any angle, is illegal, unjust and void and therefore, petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the sale concerned, viewed in any angle, is illegal, unjust and void and therefore, petitioners are entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. Fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioners. According to the 4th respondent, the 1st petitioner has received the 4 cents of property as per Patta issued by the Land Tribunal dated 02.08.1976, and it was on the basis of the mortgage created for the said property, loan was advanced to the 1st petitioner. It is also admitted that some amounts were due to the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. However, the 4th respondent has obtained consent from the Village Officer, who has issued a possession certificate on 12.02.2004, stating that they are entitled to get Rs.56,329/- and excess amounts, if any recovered, shall be paid to them. In addition, it is submitted that, 1st petitioner owns 26 cents of property in Piravanthoor Village, and it has been attached by the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board for the amounts due to them. It is also submitted that the society has every right to sell the property which was mortgaged to them and sale was conducted in accordance with law. That apart, it is contended, no petition has been filed to set aside the sale, or any appeal has been filed against the order confirming the sale, and that the property was sold at the market price prevailing at the relevant time. 6. Sixth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances under which he happened to be a purchaser. It is also contended that, he being a bona fide purchaser for value, enjoyed the property ever since the purchase, and he is entitled to continue the same. It is also contended that the writ petition is filed very belatedly, and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the said issue by invoking the writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the statutory remedies available to the petitioner were not availed by them, and therefore, after the confirmation of the sale, petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respective counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader. It is also stated that the statutory remedies available to the petitioner were not availed by them, and therefore, after the confirmation of the sale, petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respective counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 8. The fact discussion made above would make it clear that there is no dispute with respect to the loan availed by the petitioners, and creation of mortgage of the property covered under Exts.P1 and P2 against the same. The default made by the petitioners in the matter of repayment of the loan is also an admitted fact. Petitioners have no established case that the 4th respondent has not followed the mandatory or statutory formalities in conducting the sale of the mortgaged properties. Petitioners have also not stated with sufficient evidence that the property has not secured the market price. The grievance put forth by the petitioners against the sale conducted is that, they have left their native place during the year 1998 and have returned only in the year 2009. There is no evidence produced before this Court to establish that such an eventuality has occurred at all, enabling the petitioners to get any benefit on the basis of lack of knowledge with respect to the sale conducted by the 4th respondent. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the sale was conducted as early as on 02.04.2004 and no proceedings were initiated as provided under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, against the confirmation of the sale, evident from Ext.P4 dated 11.06.2004. This writ petition is filed in the year 2013. Therefore, it is clear that, after a lapse of nine years alone, the petitioners have at least cared to make a challenge against Ext.P4. There is unpardonable delay on the part of the petitioners to come before this Court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be sustained on that ground alone. 9. This writ petition is filed in the year 2013. Therefore, it is clear that, after a lapse of nine years alone, the petitioners have at least cared to make a challenge against Ext.P4. There is unpardonable delay on the part of the petitioners to come before this Court. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be sustained on that ground alone. 9. Moreover, the discussion of facts makes it clear that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners, are established with any reasonable and cogent evidence, to ascertain any manner of illegality or arbitrariness in the matter of sale of the property, warranting interference of this Court exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Above all, the 6th respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value and he is in possession of the property ever since the confirmation of sale, which is not at all disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, under the disputed facts and circumstances, this Court will not be justified in arriving at a different conclusion, thus causing prejudice to the rights enjoyed and settled in favour of the 6th respondent. If the petitioners had any genuine grievance, they should have approached this Court at the earliest point of time. Inordinate and unpardonable delay of nine years is a good ground for refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. True, there may be circumstances and situations justifying interference of this Court, however, it will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. In my considered opinion, the claims raised by the petitioners are stale, disabling this Court to interfere. 10. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. The challenge fails, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.