1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.11636 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Mariappan, Proprietor, M/s.Palanivelan Fibre Factory, No.1/470, Soorapalli Village, Jalakandapuram, Salem District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Jalakandapuram Branch, Salem Branch-636 501. 2.The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovey Tribunal, Madurai. 3.The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of I.A.No.927 of 2011 and I.A.No.928 of 2011 in O.A.No.54 of 2006 in T.A.No.308/2009 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondent-1 : Mr.Pala Ramasamy O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1. By mutual consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2.The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of I.A.Nos.927 and 928 of 2011 in O.A.No.54/2006 in T.A.No.308/2009 within a time frame. 3.Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has already filed two interlocutory applications, namely I.A.No.927 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree and I.A.No.928 of 2011 to set aside the exparte decree. He would further submit that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner had also filed an application in I.A.No.926 of 2011 to take up the matter emergently and the said application was allowed by an order dated 25.07.2011 and I.A.Nos.927 and 928 of 2011 were adjourned to 05.09.2011 for filing counter. It is submitted that the petitioner subsequently filed an application in I.A.No.1080/2011 for advancing the hearing and another application in I.A.No.1081/2011 seeking for an order of stay and both the applications were listed for hearing on 30.08.2011. However, the same were adjourned by the 2nd respondent to 03.10.2011 for filing counter. On 03.10.2011, once again, at the request of the 1st respondent, the matter was adjourned to 18.11.2011 for filing counter. 4.It is contended that in the meantime, the third respondent has proceeded further and has issued notice, dated 28.09.2011, fixing 11.10.2011 as the date for drawing up proclamation of sale. Learned counsel would contend that if the applications, namely I.A.Nos.927 and 928 of 2011 were not taken up at the earliest point of time for hearing, the petitioner would be put into great hardship and irreparable loss. It is further contended no prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent in directing the 2nd respondent herein to expedite the hearing of the above said two applications within a time frame. 5.Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that before the 2nd respondent Tribunal the matter has been posted to 18.11.2011 to enable the 1st respondent bank to enable the 1st respondent bank to file counter affidavits. It is submitted that counter affidavits would be filed on that day and the matter may be heard on that day itself and there is no difficulty for the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent Tribunal for appropriate remedy. 6.We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7.The fact remains that the petitioner has filed two interlocutory applications, namely I.A.No.927 of 2011 to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree and I.A.No.928 of 2011 to set aside the exparte decree and both the applications are pending disposal before the 2nd respondent Tribunal and the matter has been adjourned to 18.11.2011. The main grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that when the applications were posted for hearing, the 1st respondent bank frequently sought for adjournments for filing counter affidavits and in the meantime the third respondent has taken further steps and issued a notice on 28.09.2011 fixing 11.10.2011 as the date for drawing up proclamation of sale. 8.Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that it is quite reasonable for the petitioner to entertain apprehension that in the event of further delay, the petitioner may not be able to defend his case effectively on merits. 9.Considering all these factors and considering the limited prayer now made before this Court, this Court, without going into the merits of I.A.Nos.927 and 928 of 2011 in O.A.No.54/2006 in T.A.No.308/2009 and without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, directs the 2nd respondent herein to expedite the hearing of the above I.As. and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: 1.The Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Jalakandapuram Branch, Salem Branch 636 501 2.The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. 3.The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. gb ORDER IN WP(MD)No.11636/2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:11.10.2011 TR :12.10.2011: 3p/4c : IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/