JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the seventh respondent in impugned sale notice dated nil and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to return the petitioner's original sale deed pledged with the first respondent society.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the seventh respondent relating to the impugned sale notice dated nil and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to return petitioner's original Sale Deed pledged with the first respondent society. 2. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the respondent Society on 04.06.2003. In 2010, the petitioner pledged his property comprised in S.No.496 of Mugappair Village, bearing Plot No.6/486, J.J.Nagar West, Mogappair, Chennai – 600 037, for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards Employees Housing Building Loan. It appears that the petitioner repaid a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- during the period from 03.08.2010 to 31.10.2017 as monthly instalments and thereafter, defaulted in repayment of balance amount. 3. Therefore, the first respondent issued a letter dated 24.04.2018 to the petitioner, wherein, it has been stated as follows:- We hereby proceed to take necessary action to recover the loan amount of Rs.4,77,906 (Principal – Rs.1,25,000, Interest – Rs.3,52,906) owed to us at par with the Absolute Assignment of Title Deed to the undersigned of the schedule mentioned property. We demand your imminent response for repayment of loan default within three days from the date of receipt of this letter. Failing which, the Society shall recover your loan through the extract of the absolute assignment of title deed executed by you to the society and complete the entire process with due legal procedure. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has deposited the entire balance amount of Rs.4,78,500/- in the society account vide Canara Bank Cheque No.930506, on 08.05.2018 towards full and final settlement of Employees House Building Loan. The petitioner, vide letters dated 09.05.2018 & 22.05.2018, requested the respondent society to send the original documents/sale deed along with original receipt for the payment of Rs.4,78,500/- and No Due / Loan Closure Certificate, to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount, the first respondent has not returned the original documents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount, the first respondent has not returned the original documents. It is submitted that without returning the original documents, the first respondent appointed the seventh respondent Sales Officer to sale the property of the petitioner in an auction and sent an emissary and pasted a sale notice dated nil. It is therefore prayed for quashing the sale notice dated nil and for a direction to the respondent society to return the original documents of the petitioner. 6. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the firs respondent submits that in response to the petitioner's letter dated 09.05.2018, the first respondent has issued a letter dated 15.05.2018 to the petitioner enclosing all the original documents including the original sale deed. According to the respondent Society, all the documents were returned to the petitioner' residential address with acknowledgement card by way of registered post. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner if advised can invoke the alternate jurisdiction before the Arbitrator under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 9. The facts on record do not clearly bring out whether the documents were indeed received by the petitioner from the respondents. The documents which were allegedly sent back to the petitioner are the originals which are pledged as Security with the respondent for the loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is unusual for an Authority to return the originals of the documents pledged as security by registered post. Therefore, a positive direction cannot be issued based on the disputed questions of fact. 10. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to dispose this Writ Petition by directing the respondents to re-examine their records and confirm whether the documents were indeed sent back to the petitioner or have been retained by them by mistake. In case there are no records available with them, it has to be only construed that the documents have been lost either by the petitioner or the respondents. 11. It is made clear that the respondents shall return the original documents, if it is retrieved or found at a later point of time, to the petitioner. 12. In case there are no records available with them, it has to be only construed that the documents have been lost either by the petitioner or the respondents. 11. It is made clear that the respondents shall return the original documents, if it is retrieved or found at a later point of time, to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner is at liberty to get a duplicate copy of the same from the concerned Sub Registrar Office by filing a suitable representation / application in the light of the above discussion. 13. This Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.