IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9470 of 2009(C) ------------------------- DRC.1531/2009 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SOJA ANTO @ ANTONY, AGED 36, W/O.LATE V.A.ANTONY @ ANTO, KANNANPUZHA HOUSE, THRIKUMARAKUNDAM COLONY, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALY BRANCH, REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.K.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KARAYETHU HOUSE, PANANCHERY, KATTIKADU, THRISSUR. 3. P.D.JAISON, S/O.DEVASSY, PALIYAKKARA HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR. 4. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR. A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UNION BANK OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 9470 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner states that she is a widow of V.A.Antony, a debtor under a recovery certificate issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said recovery certificate was enforced and an item of property of the debtor sold. The petitioner has filed an application before Debt Recovery Tribunal to set aside that sale or declare it a nullity. The complaint is that the said interlocutory application and another interlocutory application seeking stay of delivery are not being send up for consideration of the Presiding Officer, who is the competent authority. In fact, it is alleged that the said interlocutory applications are not even numbered. I am clear in my mind that it is not possible for any officer other than the Presiding Officer or Recovery Officer as the case may be to decide any question as to the maintainability including the ground of limitation of any application that is filed in terms of the statutory provisions contained in RDB Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even if a particular matter is defective in the views WP(C) 9470/2009 2 of the Registrar, that has also to be placed for consideration of the Registrar of the objections and replies of the party and if needed be thereafter rejected which again is a matter on which the petitioner will have a remedy before the Tribunal. But applications cannot be, thus detained. For the aforesaid, this writ petition is ordered directing that the petitioner's applications, copies of which are placed on Exts.P3 and P4, if received, shall be numbered and listed before the appropriate authority for consideration. To enable that process, dispossession will stand suspended for a period of two weeks. Issue copy of the judgment tomorrow itself. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/26/3