IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2086 of 2009(W) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1829/ 2008 IN SA.102/2008 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. USHA KUMARI,W/O.SAJI YOHANNAN, ANTONY VILASOM, THEKKEMMURI, EAST KALLADA.P.O. 2. SAJI YOHANNAN, S/O.G.YOHANNAN, M/S.SHEEBA PAINTS, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA. BY ADV. SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,FEDERAL BANK LTD,KUNDARA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,FEDERAL BANK LTD, KUNDARA BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.2086 of 2009-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an interlocutory order issued by the DRT pending an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioners, the amount covered by Ext.P1 has been deposited, however that, the bank is not crediting it against the loan transaction, but is maintaining it in a suspense account. The petitioners state that they have entered into a private transaction with some third party and that the payment already made in satisfaction of Ext.P1 is by utilizing the funds extended by that person and therefore, the petitioners have a time frame to work out the contract with the third party. They accordingly want this Court to exercise the writ jurisdiction to clarify Ext.P1 interlocutory order of the DRT and direct the bank to give WP(C)2086/2009 -: 2 :- credit of the amounts into the loan account and also to provide certain schemes by which the loan could be liquidated and total be reduced. The DRT is manned by a Presiding Officer on charge basis. It is that officer who issued Ext.P1. I do not think that the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court should be extended to clarify an order passed by the DRT, at any rate, in the manner sought for by the petitioner. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek relief from the DRT. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220109