IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4409 of 2011(A) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- SHINY JOHN, W/O.P.J.JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, POOTHULLIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BANK OF BARODA, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 18. 2. M/S.KALACHITRA, 41/637, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KOCHI-18. 3. R.RANGANATHAN, PROPRIETOR, KALACHITRA, 41/637, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KOCHI-18. 4. RADHAMANI, 39/277, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KOCHI-18. 5. AMMINI AMMA, PURAVARIKKAL HOUSE, POYKKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHIN - 30. 6. R.RAJENDRAN, S/O.R.RANGANATHAN, 39/277, PULLEPPADY ROAD, KOCHI-18. 7. MALATHY AMMA ALIAS KRISHAMMA, PURAVARIKKAL HOUSE, POYKKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 030. 8. P.V. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. PUTHENVEETTIL VELLANGI KUNJU MOHAMMAD, ORUMANAYOOR DESOM, KADAPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN 676 001. ...2/- WP(C).No. 4409 of 2011(A) -2- 9. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM – 682 018. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 4409 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was challenging steps initiated by the 9th respondent for conducting sale of the property by virtue of Ext.P8 proclamation . Grievance of the petitioner was that the 9th respondent was proceeding with the sale, without considering the claim petition filed by her, as per Ext.P10. By virtue of an interim order issued by this court on 11.2.2011, the 9th respondent was directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P10 claim petition. However, confirmation of sale if any takes place pursuant to Ext.P8 was directed to be kept in abeyance. 2. It is reported that the sale as proclaimed under Ext.P8 has not taken place. Meanwhile the 9th respondent had considered Ext.P10 claim petition and dismissed the same. It is further reported that the petitioner had challenged the decision of the 9th respondent WP(C) .4409/2011 2 by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the appeal filed in this regard the DRT had already issued an interim order. 3. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to pursue the matter before the DRT. Reserving such liberty as mentioned above, this writ petition is closed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .4409/2011 3