IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21199 of 2008(W) -------------------------- IA 493/2008 IN SA.82/2007 of DRT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.J. DEVAKI, AGED 60, W/O. C.N. RAJAPPAN, VAISAKH HOUSE, KARIMBA.P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANKARA BRANCH, MANKARA, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21199 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner faced proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovery. She moved this Court way back in April, 2007 and obtained a judgment, granting various benefits in relation to repayment. After that judgment in W.P(C).12663/07, she filed yet another writ petition, W.P(C).18406/07, which was disposed of by the same learned Judge, saying that the issues are concluded by the earlier judgment. She moved W.A.No.1976/07, which was disposed of by the Division Bench clearly noticing that financial institutions cannot be led to a stage where the money gets locked up by granting facilities by way of instalments etc. At any rate, the petitioner did not avail the benefits in any of those judgments. Later, she filed a securitisation appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. On 31.10.2007, learned counsel who had vakalath in that case made an endorsement on that securitisation appeal that the said appeal can be dismissed by granting time till 20.2.2008 for making payment. This was WPC.21199/08 Page numbers recorded and the securitisation appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 31.10.2007. Thereafter, I.A.493/08 was filed before the Tribunal by the appellant through another lawyer, saying that the contentions were not withdrawn and the endorsement was made in good faith and on the assumption that the appellant will be able to pay off the amounts. The Tribunal was not willing to concede to that request. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. 2. From what has been noticed above, it can be easily seen that the appellant was only trying to drag on the enforcement and recovery of the amounts due in a banking transaction. Not only that, when an advocate who had vakalath had made an endorsement that the appeal is not pressed, it does not entitle the party, the appellant, to engage yet another lawyer and to file an application withdrawing what has been stated before the Tribunal through the advocate who was duly authorised to say so. This is a very wrong approach, in my view, in the matter of practice and I am sure that there are precedents where the hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated such practices and had WPC.21199/08 Page numbers also indicated that if review regarding something that had transpired in a court or tribunal is to be filed, it is most appropriate that it is filed through the same lawyer. Learned counsel for the Bank is also justified in pointing out that even in the affidavit supporting I.A.493/08, there was really no criticism of the lawyer who had been appearing for the petitioner when the endorsement was made on the appeal that it is not pressed. In the aforesaid circumstances, finding that there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order, no questions, including any legal issue that could be raised referable to the law in question, deserve to be entertained by this Court under authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when if the petitioner continues to be aggrieved, she has not exhausted the remedy by way of appeal to the appellate authority under the statute. The writ petition is hence, dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.25/7.