IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 1217 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ SA.11/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER -------------- D.VINCENT,S/O.DEVASAHAYAM NADAR, KUZHIVILA VEEDU,KULATHOOR,UCHAKKADA PO, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, STATUE BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL OF KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP,HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI. R-1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.DILIP SRI.SAJU N.A. SMT.G.LEKHA SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SMT.P.J.FLONY SMT.UMA.G.KRISHNAN THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- O.P(DRT) No.1217 of 2010-O ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is the applicant in S.A.No.11 of 2008 on the files of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent is the defendant in the said case. Proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) is under challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. According to the petitioner he had filed I.A.No.280/2010 in S.A.No.11 of 2008, for obtaining expert opinion on comparison of signature of the petitioner with the signature available in the original documents of the loan transaction. Grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough the said application was filed as early as on 25.1.2010, the Tribunal is not taking any decision on the said application, inspite of several adjournments. It is complained that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is proceeding with disposal of the securitisation application, without taking any decision on the above said interim petition. O.P(DRT) No.1217 of 2010-O 2 2. Heard; counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank. I am of the view that, since the petition in question is only an interlocutory application filed in a pending case before the tribunal, it may not be proper for this Court to consider its merits or to enter on findings regarding its sustainability. Interest of justice will be served if the Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to consider the petition and to pass appropriate orders thereof. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the securitisation application itself is ripe for hearing and disposal. However, it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to pass a separate order on I.A.No.280 of 2010, considering its merits. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent tribunal to consider and dispose of I.A.No.280/2010 in S.A.No.11/2008, by passing a separate order on the said interim application. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab