IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3501 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.N.LABEEBA, LABEEBA HOUSE, HOUSE NO.197-A K.B.NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM P.O. KOLLAM. 2. LARISH LIYAKATH, LABEEBA HOUSE,HOUSE NO. 197-A,K.B.NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, 8TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B.BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KOLLAM. R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG. R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.K.JOHN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.3501 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners challenge Ext.P8 proclamation of sale issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as regards recovery proceedings against Manappuram Cashew Company. Two items of properties are listed for sale for a total recovery of more than Rs.4,58,00,000/- as on 22.1.2009. 2. The petitioners' plea is that they bought an extent of 3.75 Ares of land out of one of the items listed in Ext.P8 for sale and accordingly, they seek to quash Ext.P8 at least to the extent of that property. The Recovery Officer can necessarily take into consideration any interest of third parties provided they are third parties in terms of law. But even going by the assertion of the petitioners in the writ petition, they have only a subsequent sale, by the debtors, in their favour. Therefore, even if the petitioners were not parties before the DRT in the O.A. proceedings, there cannot be any legal infirmity in it. WPC.3501/09 Page numbers 3. Learned counsel for the bank then pointed out that the bank is prepared to consider the request of the petitioners for a negotiated settlement at least as regards the portion of the property held by the petitioners. The materials on record is insufficient for concluding as to the total lie of the property, area which is claimed as occupied by the petitioners and other attendant circumstances which may or may not make it commercially viable for the bank to come to such a course. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the second respondent for any negotiated settlement and on the petitioners making such a request, the second respondent would consider the feasibility of the suggestions made by the petitioners. Since the sale is listed to 27.2.2009, if the petitioner make such a request at the earliest, that would be looked into by the bank at the earliest, at any rate, before WPC.3501/09 Page numbers auction, so that the petitioners, if aggrieved, can bring that also to the notice of the Recovery Officer. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.