IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1335 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- P.K.KUMARAN, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.KADUTHA, SOMA SADANAM, PERUMBAIKKADU PO. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1.K.J.GEORGE @ JOY, S/O.JOSEPH, KUZHIYANKALAYILIL, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. K.P.JAYAKUMAR. S/O.PRAMESWARAN NAIR, ANJALI HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR PO., KOTTAYAM. 3. LATHA NAIR, BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK, ETTUMANOOR BRANCH, ETTUMANOOR PO., KOTTAYAM. 4. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ETTUMANOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ETTUMANOOR PO., KOTTAYAM. 5. AUTHORISED OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC, KOTTAYAM DIST.CO-OP.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.1335 of 2009-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a guarantor for a transaction under which the fourth respondent had issued a loan facility. 2.According to the petitioner, he was essentially cheated by certain persons thereby duping him and depriving him of property. The agreement, according to him, has been created in a dubious manner. It is pointed out that on his complaint, the police investigated a case and a charge has been made before the competent criminal court. These facts would be mixed questions of law and facts. 3.The petitioner contends that no notice under Section 13(2) was issued preceding the impugned WP(C)1335/2009 -: 2 :- Exts.P8 and P9. He also contends that as a prelude to Ext.P8, there ought to be yet another notice to be served in terms of the amendment of 2007 to Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. He further contends that publication of Ext.P9 in the newspaper is also quite unsustainable. These are contentions which could be raised appropriately for consideration of the DRT in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4.As of now, DRT, K & L is being manned by a presiding officer on regular basis. This is a great relief to the debtors and creditors belonging to this part of India. I do not find any ground for this Court to extend the visitorial jurisdiction when the petitioner has adequate efficacious remedy by recourse to the DRT, more particularly when the impugned notice Ext.P8 is issued only on 6-1-2009 and the petitioner would be within time to invoke Section WP(C)1335/2009 -: 3 :- 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to that course. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/