IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No.357 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23453/2007 Dated 09/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------ N.S.REMADEVI, W/O.T.R.HARI, ANIKKATTU HOUSE, POOVARANI, PALAI KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRICHUR AND BRANCH AT AKALAKUNNAM, KANHIRAMATTAM P.O., CHENGALAM VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. BOBAN T. THEKKEL, S/O. T.A.THANKACHAN, THEKKEL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN. R2 BY ADV.SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.357 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The petitioner who stood as surety to the loan availed by her brother for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, has questioned the auction sale conducted by the Recovery Officer under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in favour of the second respondent. (2). The petitioner and her brother had committed default in remitting the amounts borrowed from the first respondent Bank. The Bank had filed a civil suit for realising the loan arrears together with interest and the same had been decreed in favour of the Bank. (3). The Bank had filed O.A.No.301 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for executing the decree. Pursuant to the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal, the Recovery Officer has conducted sale and the second respondent was the highest bidder in the auction. The sale so held was not only confirmed but sale deed was also executed. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the second respondent had also approached the Revenue authorities to effect mutation entries in his name and that was also done. The possession of the property in question is also handed over by the Recovery Officer in favour of the second respondent. It is at that stage, the appellant/petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23453/2007. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this appeal. (4). Admittedly, pursuant to the orders and directions issued by W.A.No.357/2008 -2- the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the Recovery of of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Recovery Officer has not only brought the property of the petitioner for sale and since the second respondent was the highest bidder, the sale has been confirmed and possession of the property is also handed over to the second respondent. In our opinion, if for any reason the appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, necessarily she has to file appropriate appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The remedy so provided, in our opinion, is not only effective but also efficacious. By-passing that remedy, the appellant/petitioner should not have approached this Court. In that view of the matter, for the reasons other than what has been said by the learned Single Judge, we reject this writ appeal. It is for the petitioner to approach appropriate Forum for appropriate reliefs. (5). Consequently, the reliefs sought for in I.A.No.153 of 2008 is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS