IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23238 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER -------------------------------------- N.A.SUBAIR, PROPRIETOR, SUDHEER & CO., CHENGAMANADU P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGD. OFFICE, ALUVA, BRANCH : THOTTAKKATTUKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GP SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.23238 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner had approached this Court earlier in relation to the distress action being taken against him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under lawful orders. It appears that WPC No.2801 of 2007 was disposed of granting him sometime to pay off. By Ext.P3 order, the learned Judge had extended the time for a further period of one month till 31-12- 2007, as a last chance. Under such circumstances, even if the petitioner is shown to have made any further payments after Ext.P3, I do not find any ground for the writ court to interfere and further enlarge the time, particularly when, the sale in terms of Ext.P5 is listed only on 26-8-2008 and even if the sale takes place, there are provisions in the IInd schedule to the Income Tax Act for paying off the outstandings and averting confirmation of sale. WPC23238/08 -:2:- 2. The other contentions of the petitioner relating to the inclusion of Rs.13,39,421.87 in Ext.P5 as the amount due, which, according to him, has been arrived at without giving due credit to the amounts already paid and the plea that the valuation of the property is not proper are matters which the petitioner can place before the recovery officer, in accordance with law and also raise it in further proceedings under the statute, if necessary. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in this matter. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.4.8.