IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8024 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- DRC.NO.2296 IN OA.364/2005 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ROSAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, AGED 52, MUTHUPUNNACKAL HOUSE, PLANASSAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. KURIAN GEORGE, S/O.M.K.GEORGE, AGED 29, MUTHUPUNNACKAL HOUSE, PLANNASAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., MR.VARUGHESE M EASO, MR.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, 2. M.K. SEBASTIAN.S/O.M.C. KURIEN, AGED 59 MUTHUPUNNACKAL HOUSE, PLANASSAL P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 3. M.K. THOMASKUTTY,S/O.M.C. KURIEN, AGED 48, MUTHUPUNNACKAL HOUSE, PLANASSAL P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 4. TOM JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 39, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O.,KOTTAYAM. DISTRICT. 5. K.T. JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 58, RESIDING AT KONDATTUKUNNEL, MUKKOOTUTHARA. 6. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL), MR.P.R.MILTON, MR.K.J.CHACKOCHAN. R6 BY ADV. MR.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No. 8024 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T This writ petition is stating that the petitioner is constrained to move before this Court since the statutory appellate authority, namely the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, is not sitting till 15.3.2010 and hence that the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner are liable to be intercepted by this Court. It was accordingly, that urgent notice on admission was ordered by special messenger on 11.3.2010, ordering 'status quo' till this date. 2. The sequence of events as described in the writ petition shows that, being aggrieved of Ext.P2 order passed by the DRT, Ernakulam in Ext.P1 appeal, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 petition for stay, which are stated as pending consideration before DRAT, Chennai. As mentioned above, the grievance projected by W.P.(C).No. 8024 of 2010 2 the petitioner in paragraph-17 of the writ petition and elsewhere is that the DRAT, Chennai, is not sitting till 15.3.2010, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, who is the successful bidder of the property in question, submits that the entire sale consideration has been paid by the said respondent nearly two years ago and because of the protracting tactics being pursued by the petitioner, the said respondent is made to run from pillar to post and virtually disabled from enjoying fruits of the sale. The learned counsel also brought it to the notice of this Court that similar course was pursued by the petitioner earlier as well, by filing W.P.(C).No. 5329/2010, seeking for interference of this Court, stating that the DRAT, Chennai was not sitting and that the office was lying vacant. Subsequently, on confronting the factual position, the writ petition was sought to be withdrawn, however, ordering 'status quo' till 20/2/2010, to enable the petitioner to pursue W.P.(C).No. 8024 of 2010 3 appropriate remedies. 4. It has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, by the petitioner himself, that the DRAT, Chennai, has commenced sitting from 24.2.2010 and on the same day, Ext.P5 appeal was heard and it was posted to 26.2.2010 for filing objections by the respondents. It is further stated that on 26.2.2010, the 'stay petition' was not considered by the DRAT, as the time in Ext.P5 was over. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the said submission is not correct and that the prayer in the petition for stay was actually considered by the DRAT, Chennai and the appellate authority refused to grant any interim order therein. 5 . In any view of the matter, the reason stated in paragraph-12 of the Writ Petition that it was observing that the time mentioned in Ext.P5 was over, that the stay petition was not considered by the DRAT, Chennai, does not reconcile with the averments in paragraph-17 and Ground A of the W.P.(C) stating that, the matter could not be moved W.P.(C).No. 8024 of 2010 4 before the DRAT, since the DRAT, Chennai was not sitting till 15.3.2010. This Court, however, does not propose to go into the merits of the case, as not necessitated. 6. The fact remains that the DRAT, Chennai has stated sitting from today onwards, as confirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Since the claim of the petitioner was only to have a breathing time till 15.3.2010, so as to seek for appropriate reliefs in the interim application for stay filed and pending before the DRAT, Chennai, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the Writ Petition pending any further. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the DRAT, Chennai for appropriate reliefs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl