IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32040 of 2010(D)
1. SHERLY EVUGIN, W/O. LATE JOSE EVUGIN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
... Respondent
2. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY
3. JOBIN JOYCE, S/O. JOYCE,
4. JERIN JOYCE, S/O. JOYCE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.DILIP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :20/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.32040 of 2010-D
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the fourth respondent (4th certificate
debtor) in DRC No.2798/SBT/KTM before the second
respondent, which is a proceedings initiated on the basis of
the Recovery Certificate issued in favour of the first
respondent by the DRT, in O.A.No.253 of 2004. According
to the petitioner, her husband who was looking after the
entire affairs connected with the loan transaction and the
proceedings before the Tribunal and before the second
respondent, died on 31.5.2010. It is submitted that it was
only after death of her husband the petitioner came to know
about the case. It is revealed that, against the recovery
certificate issued by the Tribunal an appeal was filed before
the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, and a conditional
order was issued which the petitioner or her deceased
husband could not be complied with. It is further revealed
that the property having an extent of 72 Ares was sold by
W.P(C) No.32040 of 2010-D 2
the second respondent on 23.9.2010. Respondents No.3
and 4 are the successful bidders. According to the
petitioner the sale was conducted at a very low price and
there was material irregularity with respect to conduct of
sale. The petitioner is intending to approach the DRT
challenging the sale conducted on 23.9.2010. For the said
purpose the petitioner had already applied for certified copy
of the relevant records. Grievance of the petitioner is that
without providing a breathing time to approach the DRT,
the second respondent had proceeded with further steps for
confirmation and issuance of sale certificate. Hence in this
writ petition the petitioner is seeking relief to restrain
further actions of second respondent, in order to facilitate
her to approach the appellate authority.
2. Heard; standing counsel appearing for the first
respondent. It is submitted that the matter stands posted
before the second respondent on 26.10.2010 for effecting
confirmation of sale.
3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the
W.P(C) No.32040 of 2010-D 3
opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing
the second respondent to keep the matter pending for a
short period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach
the appellate authority.
4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the second respondent to keep in abeyance all
further steps pursuant to the sale conducted on 23.9.2010,
in the DRC No.2798/SBT/KTM, for a period of one month in
order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
W.P(C) No.32040 of 2010-D 4