IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 OP (DRT).No. 269 of 2011(O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA.115/2011 IN DRC.801/2011 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ A.S.LOULY SURESH, 'AKSHAY', AKSHAYA TOWER, TC 18/2008(10), ARMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-692 036. 2. CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PUTHENCHANDA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034. 3. SALIH INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., OLD TC 38/585 NEW TC 38/1469/11, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008. ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- O.P(DRT) No.269 of 2011-O ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner had approached this Court with the grievance that the 1st respondent Recovery Officer has taken steps to conduct sale of a property belonging to her, on the basis of a wrong identification. A claim submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was pending disposal. On 19.1.2011 this Court had issued an interim order directing to keep in abeyance confirmation of sale if any takes place. It was clarified that the 1st respondent will be at liberty to consider and dispose of the claim petition. 2. Today when the matter was taken up for further consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank that, the 1st respondent had considered the claim petition and the matter has already been referred to the revenue authorities concerned, for identification of the property. It is also mentioned that the 1st respondent O.P(DRT) No.269 of 2011-O 2 had issued a stay order with respect to the proposed sale till the disposal of the claim petition. 3. Under such circumstances, the parties agreed that the matter can be pursued before the 1st respondent. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to rights to agitate the issue before the 1st respondent. It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is left open for agitation. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab