Prasannakumari vs Laila Beevi
2023 Latest Caselaw 10199 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                      OP(C) NO. 1894 OF 2023
             OS 21/2020 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
           PRASANNAKUMARI AGED 63 YEARS W/O.BABUKUTTAN RESIDING AT
           ANJALI BHAVAN, THYKKOOTTHATHIL THARAYIL, CHAVARA
           BRIDGE P.O, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK,
           KOLLAM, PIN - 691583

          BY ADVS.
          S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
          K.VIJAYAN


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
     1     LAILA BEEVI AGED 53 YEARS D/O. THANGAL KUNJU, THAYYIL
           THEKKETHIL VEEDU(ANSU MANZIL), MUKUNDAPURAM P.O,
           MENAMPALLY MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK,
           KOLLAM, PIN - 691585

    2     THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,
          1ST FLOOR, BHARATH TOWERS, TALUK OFFICE JUNCTION,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691001

          BY ADVS.
          PRATHEESH.P
          ASP.KURUP
          ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014)
          SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
          C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
          SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
          RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1894 OF 2023
                                 2


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks that OS No.21/2020, filed by her

before the learned Sub Judge, Karunagappally, be directed to

be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that his client has been constrained to approach

this Court seeking the afore relief because, in the meantime,

the second respondent - Financial Institution, is initiating and

continuing recovery action against his client's property, under

the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (SARFAESI). He thus additionally prayed that the said

proceedings also be interdicted, until such time as the Suit is

disposed of.

3. I notice from the file that, even though service of

summons from this Court has been validly completed on the

1st respondent, she has chosen not to be present in person or

to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to

the impression that she has nothing to offer in opposition to

the various reliefs sought for in this original petition. OP(C) NO. 1894 OF 2023

4. Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup - learned standing counsel for

the second respondent, submitted that the latter of the afore

prayers is highly mischievous because the Suit itself may not

be maintainable. He explained that the petitioner claims to

have executed a sham document of transfer of the secured

asset obtained by his client, over which an equitable

mortgage has been created by the first respondent on the

strength of title, while availing a loan. He submitted that,

therefore, even though the Original Suit filed by the petitioner

can be directed to be disposed of quickly, any interdiction to

the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act may be ordered,

particularly when the petitioner has not invoked her statutory

remedies, including by approaching the Debts Recovery

Tribunal.

5. I must say that there is force in the afore submissions

of Sri.Sadchith P.Kurup.

6. In the afore circumstances and since this Court is

incapacitated from interdicting the proceedings initiated by

the first respondent under the SARFAESI Act, on account of

the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South

Indian Bank v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], I OP(C) NO. 1894 OF 2023

deem it apposite to dispose of this Original Petition to the

limited extent of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the

Original Suit within a time frame.

7. Resultantly, I allow this Original Petition and direct

the Sub Judge, Karunagappally, to dispose of OS No.21/2020

pending before it, after affording necessary opportunities to

both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Needless to say, all liberties to the petitioner, including

to invoke appropriate remedies before the competent and

alternative Forums are left open.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu OP(C) NO. 1894 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1894/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.

21/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPALLY DATED NIL

Exhibit -P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE M.C NO. 796/2022 OF CJM, COURT, KOLLAM DATED 16.11.2022

Exhibit -P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2022 IN M.C NO. 796/2022 OF THE CJM, COURT, KOLLAM