IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21621 of 2010(C) -------------------------- OA.146/2000 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- CHERIAN VARGHESE, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL(KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP), 8TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,COCHIN 682 036. 2. GEORGE KOSHY,S/O.K.G.KOCHUKOSHY, KONNAYIL,T.B.ROAD,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689 645. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PANDALAM BRANCH , ADDOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. MR. SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21621 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the sale conducted by the concerned respondent for realisation of the amount stated as due under a loan transaction. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition including the contention that the proceedings are barred by law of limitation . 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is very much clear that the impugned order, which has been passed by the first respondent is appealable under the relevant provisions of law. That apart, to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it may be necessary to adduce evidence as well. 4. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it as a W.P.(C) No. 21621 OF 2010 2 fit case warranting interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, interference is declined, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by resorting to statutory remedy. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk