IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23654 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- O.A.NO. 346/2003 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) AT KOCHI. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- C.P.MOHAMMED KUTTY S/O.C.P.MOIDEEN, CHACKALIPARAMBIL HOUSE POOKAYIL PO., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU, SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ, SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH, SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR, SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP) ERNAKULAM. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CALICUT BRANCH, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.23654 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Notice to respondents 1 and 2 dispensed with. Having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, notice to the third respondent dispensed with, preserving its right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition the date on which the Debts Recovery Tribunal had passed the recovery order in the O.A. filed in 2003. On query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order itself was ex parte. The writ petition does not disclose the date of the recovery certificate. It does not disclose the date on which the matter was adjourned by the recovery officer for sale also. These are some of the criteria that has to weigh with the Tribunal under Section 27 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, adjourning the sale to facilitate payment. WPC.23654/08 Page numbers 3. This writ petition is filed on the short ground that the petitioner invoked Section 27 of the RDB Act and filed an application on 1.8.2008 seeking adjournment of sale which is listed today, 6.8.2008. He states that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not available and therefore, the matter is likely to be taken up tomorrow. This is the cause of action of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having argued the matter for quite some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner gives up his right to prosecute Exts.P1 and P2 or any other application before the DRT for enlargement of time or for adjournment of sale and states that as a last opportunity, the petitioner may be given one months' time from today to deposit the amounts and avert the sale. On the basis this submission, time as sought for is granted, ordering that the sale listed today will stand adjourned without any further notice to the petitioner since he waives the right to have any such notice and it will be listed immediately after one month for further proceedings on the WPC.23654/08 Page numbers basis of the proclamation already issued. If the petitioner does not pay off the entire outstandings in the mean while, the recovery officer will be at liberty to proceed with the sale as aforesaid. This will, however, be without prejudice to the third respondent's privilege to close the transaction for a lesser amount. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The Office will communicate a copy of this order to the first respondent. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.7/8.