Reji. M . P vs The Authorised Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9600 Ker

O.P(DRT).337/22                       1



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
       THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                          OP (DRT) NO. 337 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSA 352/2018 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
                                 ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:

             REJI. M . P
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O. PAULOSE
             663-P, 1ST FLOOR
             SREELAKSHMI COMPLEX
             STATUE JUNCTION, TEMPLE ROAD
             TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
             , PIN - 682301
             BY ADVS.
             SADCHITH.P.KURUP
             C.P.ANIL RAJ
             ANCY RUBENS


RESPONDENT/S:

             THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
             THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,
             ERNAKULAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
             2ND FLOOR, K.C. CENTRE,
             OPP. NORTH POLICE STATION,
             KACHERIPADY, CHITTOOR ROAD,
             ERNAKULAM
             , PIN - 682018
OTHER PRESENT:

             0
             ADV. P.S. GEORGE (SC)


      THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P(DRT).337/22                              2




                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact

that without granting a reasonable time to the petitioner to challenge the

order passed in I.A.No.1607 of 2022 in S.A.No.352 of 2018, on the file of the

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, the respondent bank is proceeding to

take physical possession of the secured asset. It is submitted that a reasonable

time may be granted to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to approach the

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed on the

aforesaid interlocutory application. It is also pointed out that this court had

granted an interim order protecting the petitioner from dispossession till

today.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank

also.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the

petitioner is not residing in the property in question and it is actually in the

possession of the tenants. It is submitted that there is clear suppression of

material facts and the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence whatsoever.

The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner made a belated

application for a copy of the order on the IA, , after filing the original petition.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the limited nature of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, this

original petition is disposed of directing that the interim order granted on

19.8.2022 will continue for a period of 3 weeks from today to enable the

petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the order

in I.A. 1607 of 2022 in S.A. 352 of 2018 on the file of the Debts Recovery

Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion

on the merits of the matter and it is for the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

to consider the matter, on merits, in accordance with law.

This original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE okb/ //True copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 337/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SA NO. 352/2018 DATED 27/08/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DRT 1 ERNAKULAM WITHOUT ANNEXURES Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 1606/2022 IN SA NO.

352/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DRT 1, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 1607/2022 IN SA NO.

352/2018 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DRT 1, ERNAKULAM