IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (DRT).No. 2066 of 2011(O) ---------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------------------ UMMER, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ALIYAR, MOOLAYIL, MARKET.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, AXIS BANK, RETAIL ASSETS CENTRE, CHICKAGO PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682035 2. ABDUL BARIK, S/O. MUHEMMEDALI, CHIRAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KISHUPPILLIKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680704. THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (DRT).No. 2066 of 2011 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF SA FILED BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. TURE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. KP/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- O.P.(DRT)No. 2066 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Petitioner is an auction purchaser of property in a proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In respect of the sale of the properties he has certain grievances. He filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the same. The petitioner's grievance is that the appeal is not being numbered since the appeal is, according to Registry of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, barred by limitation. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs. (i) quash the sale proceedings including confirmation of sale as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. (ii) Pass appropriate orders for sale of secured asset afresh in accordance with law. I am of the opinion that when an appeal is filed, the same cannot be simply refused to be numbered or considered by the Registry on the ground of limitation. It is for the Presiding officer of the Tribunal to consider the question after hearing the O.P.(DRT)No. 2066/2011 -2- petitioner and take a decision as to whether it is barred by limitation. I am passing this order because the petitioner contends that the limitation starts only from the date of knowledge of the impugned proceedings since the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings. He contends that even in suits it is so. Having heard the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to number the appeal filed by the petitioner, consider the question of limitation as preliminary issue and pass orders thereon expeditiously. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge