Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Joemon Jacob vs The Federal Bank Ltd on 14 July, 2012

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

          FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934

                                 OP (DRT).No. 4100 of 2012 (O)
                                     -----------------------------
                 OA.260/2000 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
                                             ..............

PETITIONER(S):
----------------------

             JOEMON JACOB, AGED 46 YEARS,
             S/O.JACOB, PICHAPPILLIL HOUSE,
             S.PUNNAMATTOM, KADAVOOR P.O.,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

             BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
                  ADVS. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN,
                          SRI.SANJAY THAMPI.

RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------

          1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
              KALLOORKAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 668.

          2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
              THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
              HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS,
              PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN- 36.

          3. ABDUL SALAM V.K.,
              S/O. KOCHAMMED, VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE,
              POONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR- 683 547.


             R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE,
                             SRI.A.ANTONY,
                             SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY.
             R3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM,
                             SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.


       THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
       ON 14-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


rs.

OP (DRT).No. 4100 of 2012 (O)




                                APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-


EXT.P1       TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN O.A.260/2000.

EXT.P2       TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
             ON 06/07/2010.

EXT.P3       TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.07.2012.

EXT.P4       TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.(DRT) 2298/2012.

EXT.P5       TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
             THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT.

EXT.P6       TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING.

EXT.P7       TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.11.2012.

EXT.P8       TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.12.2012.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-           NIL.




                                          //TRUE COPY//


                                          P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.



                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J
               --------------------------------
                  O.P.(DRT)No.4100 of 2011
             -------------------------------------
          Dated this the 14th day of December, 2012

                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner is one of the judgment debtors in DRC No.1734 in O.A.No.260 of 2000. He along with the deceased brother were defaulters to the first respondent. In O.A.No.260/2000, the Tribunal passed Recovery Certificate and finally the property was also sold. Subsequent to the sale, his brother expired on 12.01.2012.

2. In this writ petition what the petitioner complains is that further proceedings are continued by the Recovery Officer without the decree holder impleading the legal heirs of the deceased brother. It is on that allegation, this writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction not to proceed further with the matter unless and until the legal heirs are also brought on party array.

3. In my view, such a grievance can be raised only by the aggrieved, who are none other than the legal heirs of OP(DRT) No.4100 of 2011 : 2 : the deceased brother of the petitioner and the petitioner who is a party to a proceedings throughout cannot raise this plea.

Therefore, I do not find local standi for the petitioner to raise this contention to maintain an original petition at his instance.

The O.P(DRT) is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln