IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 567 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1848/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. (IST RESPONDENT) NO.1538,KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (GENERAL MANAGER) 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CALICUT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO.1538,KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 002. BY ADV. SRI.M.ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR.K.SETHUMADHAVAN S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, KALLDA HOUSE, KASABA AMSOM& DESOM,PATTERITHAZHAM PARAMBU P.O.CHALAPPURAM,,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. K.JANAKI AMMA, D/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHIRAKUZHI PADANNA, CHALAPPURAM P.O.KOZHIKODE. 4. K.MOHANDAS RESIDING AT CHIRAKUZHI PADANNA, CHALAPPURAM .P.O.,KOZHIKODE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.567 of 2009 in W.A. No.1848 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. ORDER Bhavadasan, J, This review petition has been preferred by the respondents in W.A. 1848 of 2007. While disposing of the writ appeal, this court had held that the remedy available to the appellant was before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the appellant was given a period of three weeks to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. It is pointed out that the cause of action arose on 10.6.2006, when the property of the writ petitioner was sold and the application should have been presented within 45 days before the DRT. Having not done so, the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. It was pointed out that the said fact was omitted to be noticed and that the order in the writ appeal needs to be reviewed. 2. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents that it may not appear as if this court precludes respondents from availing of the statutory remedy. R.P. 567/2009. 2 3. In view of the contention taken by the review petitioner, it is made clear that the appellant in the writ appeal will be entitled to exclude the time spent before this court in prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal while he avails of the statutory remedy. Rest of the matter is left for consideration of the DRT. The order in writ appeal stands modified to the above extent. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.