Sreedevi M.G vs South Indian Bank Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 17886 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

                      OP (DRT) NO. 33 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA 59/2021 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,

                          ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

    1      SREEDEVI M.G., AGED 64 YEARS
           W/O. SHAJI R, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA, MARAPPALAM,
           PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
    2      SHILPA SHAJI
           W/O. DR.ALLE SHIV KUMAR, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA,
           MARAPPALAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
    3      R.SHAJI
           S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, TC 2/2700, DIVYA PRABHA, MARAPPALAM,
           PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
           BY ADVS.
           V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
           SHRI.GIRISH KUMAR V.C


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

    1      SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
           REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SREEKARYAM BRANCH,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
    2      THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
           SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, YWCA
           BUILDING, SPENCER JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
           BY ADV SRI.SUNIL SHANKER




THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) NO. 33 OF 2021
                                          2




                                  JUDGMENT

The relief claimed in this original petition

relates to Ext.P2 amendment petition pending

consideration before the Debt Recovery

Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.

2. Petitioners submitted that since DRT-II,

Ernakulam was not functioning, the said

amendment petition could not be considered

and hence they were compelled to invoke the

jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted

across the Bar by the learned counsel

appearing on both sides that now the charge

of DRT-II, Ernakulam has been handed over to

DRT-I, Ernakulam by notification.

3. I am satisfied that there is no impediment in

considering Ext.P2 application by the Tribunal

now in charge. Accordingly, there will be a

direction to the DRT-in-charge of SA

No.59/2021, before the DRT, Ernakulam to OP (DRT) NO. 33 OF 2021

take up the application for amendment,

produced herein as Ext.P2 and dispose of the

same, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

4. I take note of the submission of the learned

counsel for the respondent that the

amendment petition has become infructuous.

Whether the application has become

infructuous or not is a matter to be

considered by the DRT-in-charge while

passing orders upon the amendment petition.

The original petition is disposed of with the

above directions.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/01/09//2021 OP (DRT) NO. 33 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 33/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS SA NO.59/2021 BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM WITHOUT ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION IN I.A.NO.626/2021 IN SA NO.59/2021.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN SA NO.59 OF 2021

TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE