IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No.1817 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.20150/2008(W), DATED 29/08/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICER, CHANDRA SQURE, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, JOSE ANNEXE, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.ANAND & SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------------- SRI.JOMON JOHN, RESIDING AT JEES HOUSE, PUTHOOPARAMBIL, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1817 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.20150 of 2008 dated 29.08.2008. (2) In the writ petition, the petitioner had called in question Exhibit P2 notice issued by the respondent-Bank, in exercise of their powers under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act” for short). He had also questioned Exhibit P5 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, directing him to handover vacant possession of the mortgaged property, mortgaged in favour of the respondent-Bank. (3) The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ petition, by his order dated 4.7.2008, had stayed the recovery pursuant to Exhibits P2 and P5. Thereafter, on 14.7.2008, the said interim order was extended and, further, when the matter came up for orders on 24.7.2008, the learned Single Judge had modified the interim order and had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before a particular date. The petitioner could not deposit the entire amount as ordered by the W.A.No.1817 of 2008 - 2 - Court, but had deposited only a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. On a request made, the learned Judge has granted some time to the petitioner to deposit another Rs.2 lakhs within a particular time frame. Aggrieved by the extension of time as such granted by the learned Single Judge, the Bank is before us in this appeal. (4) In our opinion, if for any reason, the Bank was aggrieved by the interim orders passed on 4.7.2008 and 24.7.2008, they should have questioned the same before an appropriate authority. Now, what has been questioned by the Bank is a subsequent order granting some more time to the petitioner to comply with its earlier order. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge, may be taking into consideration the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioner, had thought it fit to stay all further proceedings under the provisions of the Act, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. That interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is a discretionary order and, in our opinion, the discretionary orders need not be interfered by a Writ Appeal Court. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this Writ Appeal and the same is, accordingly, rejected. (5) However, we grant liberty to the appellants-Bank to make an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for hearing of the matter out of turn/for modification of the interim orders W.A.No.1817 of 2008 - 3 - granted. It is made clear, that, if such a request is made, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (6) The orders passed by us shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge