IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1006 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ DRC.726/1999 IN O.A.673/1999 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER --------------- BABY SAMYUKTHA, W/O.T.N.RAVINDRANATH, MUTHINITHAZHAYIL VEEDU, PULIKKANAKKU MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, NEMMARA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 678 568. 3. M/S.ARATHI TRADERS, VADAVANNOOR P.O, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 506. 4. SMT.GOURIKUTTY AMMA, PEROOR VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, THULMPARAMPU VADAKKUM MURI, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690514. R2 BY ADV.SRI..R.S.KALKURA THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- O.P(DRT) No.1006 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting a claim filed by the petitioner against sale proceedings initiated with respect to 21 cents of property, upon which the petitioner claims title. According to the petitioner, she got title over the property by virtue of a decree passed by the Civil Court in a suit for specific performance and that she is in absolute ownership and enjoyment of the property. However, the 1st respondent proceeded with sale of the property on the basis of steps initiated for execution of a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. By Ext.P11, the 1st respondent found that the original owners of the property had created mortgage in favour of the 2nd respondent Bank and that the Bank is entitled to proceed against the property in question. It is further observed that the right which has been transferred to the petitioner by way of sale, in terms of the O.P(DRT) No.1006 of 2011 2 decree is having only to the effect of the petitioner stepping into the shoes of the mortgagor. 2. However, I notice that under Section 30 of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the petitioner has got an effective remedy of appeal to challenge Ext.P11 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Hence, the question need not be considered in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this Court to restrain further steps in the matter, in order to facilitate the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank on the other hand informed that the matter is now posted for sale before the 1st respondent. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail appellate remedy available before the Tribunal. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, the 1st respondent is directed to not O.P(DRT) No.1006 of 2011 3 to confirm sale if any takes place in the meanwhile, for a period of one month from today. 5. If the petitioner is seeking any condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal shall take note of the time spend in prosecuting this writ petition as contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab