Manuel P.P vs The Federal Bank Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2194 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                      OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 445/2017 OF DEBT RECOVERY
                          TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:

      1      MANUEL P.P
             AGED 49 YEARS
             S/O.POULOSE
             PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
             SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY P.O.,
             SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 580.
      2      GIGI MANUEL, W/O.MANUEL P.P.,
             AGED 44 YEARS,
             PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
             SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY P.O.,
             SREEMOOLANAGARAM,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 580.
             BY ADVS.
             SAJI MATHEW
             DENU JOSEPH
             YEDU KRISHNA R.B.


RESPONDENTS:

      1      FEDERAL BANK LTD
             THOTTAKKATTUKARA BRANCH,
             ERNAKULAM - 683 102.
      2      THE REGISTRAR,
             DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1,
             5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
             PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 036.
             ADV.PETER THARAKAN, SC-R1
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    24.02.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022
                                                2



                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                   ..............................................
                       O.P(DRT) No.174 of 2022
                      .....................................
               Dated this the 24 th day of February, 2022

                                         JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for a direction to release the sale

deed No.2343/2012 of Vadakkancherry SRO produced

in O.A.No.445/2017 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-

1, Ernakulam.

2. This original petition is necessitated since, according

to the petitioners, the Tribunal has not yet

commenced its functioning and that during the

pendency of the original application before the

Tribunal, parties have entered into a compromise but

the petitioner is unable to obtain any benefit under

the settlement.

3. Petitioner alleged that as per the terms of the

compromise, the sale deed mentioned above is liable

to be returned to the petitioners. It is further OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022

contended by Sri.Denu Joseph, the learned counsel

for the petitioners that, the respondent-Bank has

even filed an application before the Tribunal, a copy

of which is produced as Ext.P4; seeking return of the

sale deed produced as document No.37 along with

the original application before the Tribunal.

However, since the said interim application has not

yet been numbered, due to the absence of the

Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, further delay

would occur even if the Tribunal starts its

functioning in the near future. It was also

submitted that each day's delay would incur great

prejudice to the petitioners, since they intend to pay

the balance amount under the terms of compromise

by selling the property covered by the particular sale

deed sought to be returned from the Tribunal.

4. Sri.Peter Tharakan, the learned Standing counsel for

the 1 st respondent, upon instructions, submitted that OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022

the Bank has in fact filed an application for release

of the documents and that the terms of the

compromise are as stated by the learned counsel for

the petitioners.

5. It has come to the notice of this Court that the

Presiding Officers of the Tribunal have already been

appointed. However, they have not commenced

their functioning. Considering the volume of

litigations pending before the Tribunal, it may take

sometime to consider the application of the

respondent and dispose of the same. Taking note of

the prejudice that may be caused to the petitioners

and in view of the nature of settlement entered into

by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that

this is a fit case where the extra ordinary

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India can be invoked.

6. Accordingly, I direct the 2 nd respondent-The OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022

Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam to

release sale deed No.2343/2012 of Vadakkancherry

SRO, marked as document No.37 to the applicant in

O.A.No.445/2017, in accordance with the procedure

prescribed for release of documents.

7. The needful shall be done by the 2 nd respondent

within a period of seven days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment and on

compliance with the procedure required as per the

Rules of the Tribunal. It is declared that this

direction shall be treated as a direction in lieu of

the order of the Tribunal contemplated under the

Rules.

This original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/24/02//2022 OP (DRT) NO. 174 OF 2022

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK COMMUNICATING ONE TIME SETTLEMENT.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT DATED 18.02.2022 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK SEEKING RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS : NIL

TRUE COPY