IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25600 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- O.A. NO.18/2008 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- J.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ARIYANNOOR HOUSE, ANJILIOPRA,THATTARAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SMT.C.G.PREETHA, SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.S.ANISH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD , ARANMULA BRANCH, SREE KRISHNA LODGE BUILDING, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 533. ADV. SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, SC, ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.25600 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The plea of the petitioner is that, though Ext.P1 written statement was filed, the same was not considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while issuing Ext.P2 recovery order. Going by the endorsements on Ext.P1, it appears that the written statement was returned for curing defects. Whatever that be, if a matter has been decided ex- parte, including by non-consideration of any written statement, that is a matter that can be raised before the Tribunal. If it is a case where the debtor did not have sufficient opportunity to file written statement, that is also a matter for the DRT to consider. I am not impressed by the contention that there is no sitting in DRT owing to the retirement of the Presiding Officer because, the Presiding Officer of DRT, Chennai has been put WPC25600/08 -:2:- in charge of Kerala and Lakshadweep. Under such circumstances, on the face of availability of adequate alternate remedy, there is no reason for this Court to entertain this petition. Hence, preserving all the contentions of the petitioner to move the DRT, this writ petition is dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.29.8.