IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2007 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 36783 of 2007(D) -------------------------- OA.485/2002 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ A.G.JOSEPH, ARACKAL HOUSE, PONJIKARA, MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CANARA BANK, BANERJI ROAD BRANCH, KOCHI-682 018. 2. M/S.DELTA TRADING CORPORATION, 24/1382, LEGAS BUILDING, G.V.IYER ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MURALI MENON. 3. MURALI MENON, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, GOPURAPILLIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.U.ABRAHAM, PALACKATHADATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 6. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 36783 of 2007-D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition challenges Ext.P8 whereby, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has dismissed his application to set aside the ex-parte decree. In paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has categorically found that the postal acknowledgment card was signed by the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner who is the third defendant before the Tribunal has received summons on or before 24/11/2002. The Tribunal was not prepared to accept the plea of the third defendant-writ petitioner, in his application filed in 2007, that he was not served with notice of the original application in 2002. That finding of the Tribunal is based on the postal article, namely, the postal acknowledgment card that was available before the Tribunal. The regularity of official acts is a principle that will apply with all force to such a finding and there is no reason to believe that the postal article was tampered or abused, particularly, when no contra evidence was brought on record by the third defendant by challenging the endorsement of the postal W.P.(C) No. 36783 of 2007-D -: 2 :- authorities by citing them for examination or otherwise. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is perverse, is unsustainable. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh and others [(2002) 5 SCC 377], whereby the Apex Court, on the facts of that case, stated that when the defendant has sworn that the process was not served on him, the statement to the contrary, by the Process Server of the court, ought not to have been given more weight. However, that decision has no application to the facts of this case because, the case in hand is one where the notice was sent by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by registered post and the impugned order has been rendered on the basis of the endorsement on the postal acknowledgment card. I do not therefore, find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ms \\True Copy//