IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4921 of 2009(K)
1. SUSEELA, AGED 46 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSHY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.M.TRIPTEN
For Respondent :SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.4921 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petitioner is the first petitioner in IOP No.28 of 2007
on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that IOP was
posted to 28.5.2008 for taking evidence. The petitioner was absent
on that day. Then, the case was posted to 11.7.2008. On that day
also, the petitioner was absent. Therefore, IOP was dismissed for
default on 11.7.2008. It is stated that on 8.1.2009, the petitioner
filed I.A.No.245 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the order dated 11.7.2008. There was delay
in filing the application under Order IX Rule 9. I.A.No.244 of 2009
was filed to condone the delay. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the court below has not disposed of I.A.Nos.244 of 2009 and
245 of 2009.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent submitted that the second respondent is not very much
concerned about relief No.(i) in the Writ Petition. The second
respondent Bank has initiated proceedings against the first
respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
WPC No.4921/2009 2
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and that the
property was taken possession of. The counsel for the second
respondent submitted that after taking possession of the land, the
property was sold about six months ago. Relief No.(ii) is for a
direction to the second respondent not to take possession of the
property. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the
second respondent, relief No.(ii) is not maintainable. Even
otherwise, in a proceeding to set aside an ex-parte order, the
petitioner cannot seek for stay of the proceedings initiated under
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act.
For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the petitioner is only
entitled to relief No.(i), that is, for a direction for early disposal of
the application under Order IX Rule 9 and the application for
condonation of delay in filing that application. The Sub Court,
Ernakulam shall expedite the hearing of I.A.Nos.244 of 2009 and
245 of 2009 in IOP No.28 of 2007 and shall dispose of the same
within a period of three months.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl