IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1817 of 2008()
1. VIJAYA BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.JOMON JOHN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND,SC, VIJAYA BANK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1817 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
This Writ Appeal is directed against an interim order passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.20150 of 2008 dated
29.08.2008.
(2) In the writ petition, the petitioner had called in question
Exhibit P2 notice issued by the respondent-Bank, in exercise of their
powers under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act”
for short). He had also questioned Exhibit P5 notice issued by the
Advocate Commissioner, directing him to handover vacant possession of
the mortgaged property, mortgaged in favour of the respondent-Bank.
(3) The learned Single Judge, while entertaining the writ
petition, by his order dated 4.7.2008, had stayed the recovery pursuant to
Exhibits P2 and P5. Thereafter, on 14.7.2008, the said interim order was
extended and, further, when the matter came up for orders on 24.7.2008,
the learned Single Judge had modified the interim order and had directed
the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs on or before a particular date.
The petitioner could not deposit the entire amount as ordered by the
W.A.No.1817 of 2008
– 2 –
Court, but had deposited only a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. On a request made, the
learned Judge has granted some time to the petitioner to deposit another
Rs.2 lakhs within a particular time frame. Aggrieved by the extension of
time as such granted by the learned Single Judge, the Bank is before us in
this appeal.
(4) In our opinion, if for any reason, the Bank was
aggrieved by the interim orders passed on 4.7.2008 and 24.7.2008, they
should have questioned the same before an appropriate authority. Now,
what has been questioned by the Bank is a subsequent order granting
some more time to the petitioner to comply with its earlier order. In the
instant case, the learned Single Judge, may be taking into consideration
the financial hardship pleaded by the petitioner, had thought it fit to stay
all further proceedings under the provisions of the Act, subject to the
petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. That interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge is a discretionary order and, in our opinion, the
discretionary orders need not be interfered by a Writ Appeal Court. In that
view of the matter, we decline to entertain this Writ Appeal and the same
is, accordingly, rejected.
(5) However, we grant liberty to the appellants-Bank to
make an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for
hearing of the matter out of turn/for modification of the interim orders
W.A.No.1817 of 2008
– 3 –
granted. It is made clear, that, if such a request is made, we request the
learned Single Judge to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
(6) The orders passed by us shall not be treated as a
precedent in any other case.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
A.K.Basheer
vku/- Judge