IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20832 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SULFI NAZEER, AGED 45,W/O.NAZEER,PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVA P.O.,CHIRAYANKEEZHU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU RAJAN SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR SRI.P.SAJEEV BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., EDAVA BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 311, REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR,K.S.H.B.BUILDING,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036. 3. HARICHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 42,S/O.SHRI.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, VISHNU BHAVAN,KOCHALAMOODE,EDAVA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R3 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON 27/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: True copy of valuation certificate, dt.17.11.2008 Ext.P2: True copy of the order of confirmation, dt.12.1.2009 Ext.P3: True copy of the judgment dt. 15.12.2008 in WPC 32123/2008 Ext.P4: True copy of the order dt.20.2.2009, in I.A.251/2009 in Appeal 9/2009 Ext.P5: True copy of receipt, dt.16.3.2009 Ext.P6: True copy of notice, dt.14.7.2009 /True copy/ P.A. To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20832 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the second respondent in furtherance to confirmation of sale ordered vide Ext.P2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 1999 and when he turned to be a defaulter, the respondent Bank filed O.A. 22/2005 before the DRT, Ernakulam, finally assessee on the basis of which sale was conducted and the same was confirmed as borne by Ext.P2. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner preferred appeal 9/2009 before the DRT, Ernakulam wherein interim order was passed which however was not complied with by the petitioner on time, but stated as effected belatedly on the basis of the enlargement of time given in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the said sequence of events that, the second respondent has issued Ext.P6 notice which is subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent Bank and also the 3rd respondent-successful bidder of the WPC NO.20832/2009 2 property in question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents as above, brought into the notice of this Court that final orders already have been passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in appeal 9/2009 filed by the petitioner challenging confirmation of sale vide Ext.P2. A copy of the said order placed for consideration before this Court said order dated 25.06.2009 is stated as served on the petitioner on 31.07.2009. The remedy of the petitioner if any is only by way of appeal as provided under the relevant provisions of statute. No interference is declined under the jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and dismissed accordingly. However to angle to pursue the statutory remedy and also taking note of the submission that the petitioner is still residing with the family in the building situated in the property concerned the physical disposition will stand differ for a period of one month from today. However it shall not be conceded that the order passed in this regard will extend the period of limitation with regard to the filing of appeal in any manner. It is also made clear that further enlargement of time will provided under any circumstance. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc