IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 910 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NO.4621/2010 IN AOP.1835/2009 of IV ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS (S): -------------------- 1. M/S,PARTHASARADHY PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GIREESA KUMAR, S/O.LATE T.K.PONNAPPAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT 32/1114B, KALAVATH ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM 682025. 2. GIREESA KUMAR, S/O.LATE T.K.PONNAPPAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT 32/1114B, KALAVATH ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM 682025. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.TATA CAPITAL LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1-FORBES, VB GANDHI MARG, FORT MUMBAI AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT ERNAKULAM AT GROUND FLOOR, 32/2484, B-7, SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.910 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Ernakulam on I.A.No.4621 of 2010 in Arbitration O.P.No.1835 of 2009. Petitioner had availed a loan from respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed Arbitration O.P.No.1835 of 2009 in the court of learned Additional District Judge for an order to restrain petitioner obstructing respondent No.1 from taking possession of the vehicle. That order was granted and the vehicle was taken possession by respondent No.1. Later the court has passed Ext.P3, order dated September 22, 2010 permitting respondent No.1 to sell the vehicle after making proper paper publication. Learned counsel states that it is from the paper publication that petitioner learnt about sale of vehicle scheduled on 30.11.2010. But it is seen from Ext.P3, order that the said order was passed on September 22,2010 at a time when petitioner was represented by counsel. Learned counsel has no case that petitioner was not aware of the order dated 22.09.2010. Now this petition is filed on 29.11.2010. Petitioner could have challenged Ext.P3, order within a reasonable time. If petitioner has any other grievance it is open to it to raise that before the court concerned and seek adjournment of sale if petitioner is otherwise entitled that course. With the above direction this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.