IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2368 of 2010(U) ------------------------- DRC.1207/2003 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.T.JOSEPH, S/O. KUNNATHU THOMA, KUNNATH HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.ANTONY KOTHAMANGALAM RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, THRISSUR S.T.NAGAR BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B.BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2368 of 2010(U) APPENDIX. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE J UDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.49/98 DATE D 13/07/2001 OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14.07.2002 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN O.A.No. 180/2002. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2003 IN O.A.NO. 180 OF 2002. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/6/2005 IN W.P.(C) 12741 OF 2004 OF HIGH COURT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2005 IN SLP (CIVIL) CC. 11203 /2005 OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED ONH 18.04.2006 IN D,R.C. 1207 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED JUNE, 2006 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXT.P7 OBJECTION. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P8 REPLY EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2008 OF 2ND RESPONDENT IN DRC.NO.1207. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE ISSUED IN DRC 1207 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2004 IN W.P.(C) 12741 OF 2004. EXT.R1(b) : COPY OF THE STATEMENT /VERIFIED PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) 12741 OF 2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P. ( C) No. 2368 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 15th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the action pursued by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 in connection with realization of the amounts, stated as due under a loan transaction extended to the son of the petitioner in the course of his business, for which the petitioner as well as his wife stood as sureties . 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action pursued by the respondents, is not correct or sustainable and that the petitioner might be permitted to occupy the residential building situated in the property concerned, particularly in view of the fact that he is bed ridden and further that his wife is a severe mental patient. 3. The averments and allegations raised by the petitioner W.P. ( C) No. 2368 OF 2010 2 have been vehemently rebutted from the part of the respondents by filing a counter affidavit, also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts. R1(a) and R1(b). 4. The main contention put forth by the petitioner is that the request made by the petitioner to have 'private sale' of the property was not favourably considered by the respondents, which is cited as contrary to the enabling provisions under the relevant statute. It is also contended that the property involved herein is an 'agricultural land'. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that exactly similar contentions had been raised by the petitioner, his wife and son, when they approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.12741 of 2004 and it was after considering all the relevant aspects, that Ext.P4 judgment was passed, whereby interference was declined on merits, but for directing Ext.P6 demand notice to be kept in abeyance for a period of 'five' months so as to enable the petitioners (all the three petitioners including the petitioner herein, his son and wife) to hold private sale. It was also made clear in paragraph W.P. ( C) No. 2368 OF 2010 3 No.5 of the said verdict that, in the event of failure on the part of the petitioners in effecting the payments covered by Ext.P6 within the specified time, the respondent Bank would be entitled to proceed with further steps for recovery of the entire amount. The learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioners to Ext.P4 verdict, without satisfying the liability even within the time granted by this Court, filed SLP before the Supreme Court, challenging Ext. P4 judgment, which led to Ext.P5 order, whereby interference was declined and the SLP was dismissed on 09.12.2005. Subsequently, the petitioners therein raised the very same contentions before the Recovery Officer as well, which also did not turn to be fruitful and the respondent Bank proceeded with further steps, which are now sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition, taking the very same course of action. The learned Counsel further submits that the present attempt is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Obviously, no valid or sustainable ground has been raised to sustain the prayers raised in the Writ Petition. The only ground projected in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner is W.P. ( C) No. 2368 OF 2010 4 'bed ridden' and his wife is a severe 'mental patient'. Both the above contentions have been specifically denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed from their side. The petitioner has miserably failed in successfully challenging the course and events pursued by the Bank, referring to any infringement to the statutory prescriptions This Court does not find any legally acceptable ground to call for interference. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk