IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35634 of 2008(P)
1. DAVY LAUISE, S/O.LOUISE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), ALUVA TALUK,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMBAGAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :11/12/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 35634 OF 2008 P
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
Petitioner had availed a housing loan in 1999 from the first
respondent. Proceedings were taken against him for recovery of
the same which, according to him, is barred by limitation. He
approached this Court and by Ext.P6 Judgment this Court
proceeded to hold as follows:
“This Court will not be in a position to decide
as to whether the present claim is barred by
limitation. That will depend on the terms of the
agreement entered into between the petitioner and
the first respondent. Further, in a case where a
loan is secured by mortgage, the question of
limitation under the Limitation Act has also to be
considered. If the petitioner files any objection in
that regard before the first respondent within two
weeks from today, the same will be duly considered
with reference to the agreement executed between
the petitioner and the first respondent. If the
WPC.35634/08 P 2
petitioner files any objection within two weeks from
today before the second respondent, the same will
be considered by the said respondent with notice to
the petitioner and the first respondent and with
reference to the agreement entered into between the
parties after hearing them also. All further
proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 revenue
recovery notices will be deferred on condition the
petitioner remits a sum of Rs.50,000/= (Rupees
Fifty thousand only) within one month from today.”
2. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 before the first respondent. That
came to be disposed of by Ext.P9. Therein, it is stated that the
objection was not filed within the time stipulated and therefore,
rejected the petition.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. The
Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram is
suo motu impleaded as the additional fourth respondent and the
learned standing counsel appears for him. Learned standing
counsel would submit that it would be more appropriate if the
WPC.35634/08 P 3
additional fourth respondent looks into the question of
limitation. He fairly submits that Ext.P9 would only reveal that
a decision was not taken on account of the technical reason of
the objection being filed belatedly. In such circumstances, the
Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
Petitioner is permitted to file his objections before the
additional fourth respondent within two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In order that there may be an
expeditious disposal of the matter, the petitioner or his
representative shall be present before the additional fourth
respondent at 11 A.M. on 3.1.2009 and the fourth respondent
will proceed to consider the objections, after hearing the
petitioner or his representative, and take a decision in
accordance with law.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge