IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25870 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- O.A. NO. 108/2001 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS JAMES, S/O CHACKO, PEDIKKATTUKUNNEL, VENGACHUVADU, VAZHAKULAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. FEDERAL BANK LTD., ELANJI BRANCH, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 4. E.K. ANTONY, W/O KOCHAPPU, POS 44/1095, LFC ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI. 5. K.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O K.K. KUTTAPPAN, KANNAMTHARAYIL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 6. HARRIS .G, S/O GAFFER ESSA SAIT, 7/1078, JAAHAR ROAD,KAPPILANDIMUKKU, KOCHI. W.P.(C). NO.25870/2008-D: 7. K.B. MADHAVAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL IRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM REP. BY KRISHNAKUMAR .M, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, MANGALAMPADIL, THURAVANKARA, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM. 8. DON JOSE, CHAVELIL, CHERPUNKAL P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.25870 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a debtor of the third respondent, he having availed an agricultural loan. That led to recovery proceedings, resulting in sale through the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Third party interest has intervened in view of the auction sale. Under such circumstances, all that the petitioner could aspire is to prosecute the petitions, which he states he has filed before the DRT or the Recovery Officer, as the case may be, seeking to set aside the sale or to work out the matter on mutual understanding between the petitioner and the auction purchaser. It does not require the intervention of this Court, particularly when, it would be unjust to invite the third respondent creditor and the auction purchaser to face this proceedings at the instance of a WPC25870/08 -:2:- person, who had sufficiently dragged on the recovery proceedings. Hence, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is dismissed preserving all the rights of the petitioner to agitate the issue before the Recovery Officer or the DRT, as the case may be. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.29.7.