IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3737 of 2010(N) ------------------------- SA.460/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAGHAVAN.K.V, DIVYA SREE NEAR TALI TEMPLE, P.O.ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VASANTHA KUMARI, DIVYA SREE NEAR TALI TEMPLE, P.O.ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. V.R.DILIP,DIVYA SREE NEAR TALI TEMPLE, P.O.ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER(AUTHORISED OFFICER) THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3737 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the DRT, Ernakulam on 10.11.2009 in SA 460/2009 whereby the said proceedings were dismissed for default. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Bank as well, who submits on instructions, that as on date, a total sum of about Rs.14 lakhs is due from the petitioner, after giving credit to the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs already satisfied by the petitioner on 15.10.2009 and 18.11.2009 (1.5 lakhs each) pursuant to the interim order passed by the DRT as stated in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P6 order passed by the DRT is very much appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also stated that the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for rectification of the mistake, by approaching the very same DRT under Section 22 of the RDBA Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court because of the imminent threat as to the coercive steps and some breathing time might be given to the petitioner to pursue such exercise; more so when WP(C) No.3737/2010 2 the sale of the properties over which the security interest has been created is scheduled on 22nd of this month. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, though interference is declined in this Writ Petition, in view of the availability of alternate remedy, the sale scheduled on 22nd of this month will stand adjourned by a period of two months, on condition that the petitioner deposits a further sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs on or before the 20th of this month and pays another one lakh on or before the 25th of March, 2010. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is also made clear that interim order will continue, which shall be subject to the orders to be passed as above, either by the Tribunal or by the DRAT, as the case may be. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc