IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2568 of 2009(E) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN DRC 1460/LKB/KLM IN OS.160/2003 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ................................................. PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S. SHAH, AGED 35 YRS,S/O.SIVANANDAN, 'AMULYA', ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM-691019. 2. K.MURALEEDHARAN, SHYAM NIVAS, THRIKKADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP),K.S.H.B. BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. H.D.F.C. BANK,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER,KOLLAM BRANCH. 3. K.P.PRABHAKARAN,KOIPPURATH HOUSE, KARAMKODY,CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 FOR ASG SRI. SOUMANI JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.2568 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT First petitioner is a debtor under a recovery certificate issued by the DRT under the RDB Act. Second petitioner and the third respondent were guarantors. The petitioners seek to quash Ext.P2, a proclamation of sale of an item of property stated to be exclusively belonging to the third respondent. I am afraid that the jurisdiction of this Court would only be abused, if this writ petition is entertained. This is because, if the third respondent has any grievance against the action taken against his property, it is for him to move the Recovery Officer or the DRT and seek statutory reliefs. Even if the petitioners have a right to seek relief by way of enlargement of time for making the payments due under the recovery certificate, that again is an issue WP(C)2568/2009 -: 2 :- which falls for consideration either before the Recovery Officer or before the DRT, as the case may be. The learned counsel representing the Assistant Solicitor General, on a perusal of the papers placed on record, states that even the first petitioner was ex parte the proceedings before the DRT. I do not, therefore, find any ground to issue any order. All that is now required is to direct the petitioner to seek relief from the DRT. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/050209