IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35634 of 2008(P) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DAVY LOUISE, S/O.LOUISE, AGED 44 YEARS, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, KALADY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA TALUK, ALUVA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMBAGAM, ALUVA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL. 4.THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2008). R1 & R4 BY SHRI A. JAYASANKAR, SC. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35634 OF 2008 P -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner had availed a housing loan in 1999 from the first respondent. Proceedings were taken against him for recovery of the same which, according to him, is barred by limitation. He approached this Court and by Ext.P6 Judgment this Court proceeded to hold as follows: “This Court will not be in a position to decide as to whether the present claim is barred by limitation. That will depend on the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. Further, in a case where a loan is secured by mortgage, the question of limitation under the Limitation Act has also to be considered. If the petitioner files any objection in that regard before the first respondent within two weeks from today, the same will be duly considered with reference to the agreement executed between the petitioner and the first respondent. If the WPC.35634/08 P 2 petitioner files any objection within two weeks from today before the second respondent, the same will be considered by the said respondent with notice to the petitioner and the first respondent and with reference to the agreement entered into between the parties after hearing them also. All further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 revenue recovery notices will be deferred on condition the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.50,000/= (Rupees Fifty thousand only) within one month from today.” 2. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 before the first respondent. That came to be disposed of by Ext.P9. Therein, it is stated that the objection was not filed within the time stipulated and therefore, rejected the petition. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram is suo motu impleaded as the additional fourth respondent and the learned standing counsel appears for him. Learned standing counsel would submit that it would be more appropriate if the WPC.35634/08 P 3 additional fourth respondent looks into the question of limitation. He fairly submits that Ext.P9 would only reveal that a decision was not taken on account of the technical reason of the objection being filed belatedly. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: Petitioner is permitted to file his objections before the additional fourth respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In order that there may be an expeditious disposal of the matter, the petitioner or his representative shall be present before the additional fourth respondent at 11 A.M. on 3.1.2009 and the fourth respondent will proceed to consider the objections, after hearing the petitioner or his representative, and take a decision in accordance with law. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge