Kerala High Court
The South Indian Bank vs Augustine Mathew on 18 December, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA No.2952 of 2025
2025:KER:98395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2952 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2025 IN OP (DRT) NO.334 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(DRT):
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
PAYYANNUR BRANCH,HARITHAM COMPLEX,NR MUKUNDA HOSPITAL
MAIN ROAD,PAYYANNUR,KANNUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
PIN - 670002
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,REGIONAL OFFICE,KANNUR,KVR
TOWER,PAMBANMADHAVAN ROAD,KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
SHRI.P.PRAMEL
SHRI.SOORAJ M.S.
SMT.VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR
SHRI.MANU BABY
SMT.RAJASREE K.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(DRT):
1 AUGUSTINE MATHEW,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW,RESIDING AT KUDAKACHIRA HOUSE,NEAR
MUNSIFFCOURT,PAYYANNUR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670301
2 SHILVI AUGUSTINE,
2
WA No.2952 of 2025
2025:KER:98395
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.AUGUSTINE K.M.,RESIDING AT KUDAKACHIRA HOUSE,NEAR
MUNSIFFCOURT,PAYYANNUR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
670301
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. LIZA P. CHERIAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA No.2952 of 2025
2025:KER:98395
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in O.P.(DRT) No.334 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that original petition.
2. O.P.(DRT) No.334 of 2025 is one filed by the respondents-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order dated 18.08.2025 in I.A.No.3135 of 2025 and Ext.P2 order dated 24.03.2025 in I.A.No.564 of 2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 at Ernakulam and also a direction to maintain status quo in the property covered under Ext.P11 ownership certificate relating to building No.335 issued by the secretary of the Payyannur Municipality.
3. On 07.11.2025, when the O.P.(DRT) came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed the following interim order:
"The learned counsel for the respondent bank has made available a letter dated 07.11.2025 issued to one Mr.Abdul Haris E.K, who a successful bidder in the auction conducted 4 WA No.2952 of 2025 2025:KER:98395 in respect of the mortgaged property, wherein he has remitted Rs.67,78,000/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) being the 25% of the bid amount. It is also mentioned therein that the sale is confirmed and he is advised to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,03,32,000/- (Rupees two crores three lakhs thirty two thousand only) within 15 days from 07.11.2025. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners serious contention in this OP(DRT) is that there will be an interim order not to take further steps pursuant to this for a period of one week. Post on 13.11.2025."
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the appellants preferred the present writ appeal. The Registry has refused to number the writ appeal, raising an objection that since the impugned order is the proceedings under Article 227, a writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act is not the proper remedy and also that the copy of the writ petition shown in the case file details in metadata for description of documents of O.P.(DRT) and petitions. By a detailed order dated 03.12.2025, we found that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, preventing the appellants from taking further steps for a period of one week, can only be treated as one passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Registry 5 WA No.2952 of 2025 2025:KER:98395 was directed to number the writ appeal and list it for admission on curing the second defect noted by the Registry appropriately by the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants cured the second defect noted by the Registry, and accordingly, the appeal is numbered and listed for admission.
5. Today, when this writ appeal is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the writ appeal, submitting that the O.P.(DRT) No.334 of 2025 was already dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, without expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, this writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE