WP(C)/8113/2025 of ANEESUDHEEN AHAMMED, Vs KERALA GRAMIN BANK, on 1 April 2025

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 within a time limit and further to stay the auction of the property of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 till the disposal of Exts.P3 to P5. This court on 10-03-2025 passed the following order:- “The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the Original Application in which the ex parte order is sought to be set aside was filed in the year 2019. It is submitted that the petitioner was set ex parte in the year 2021 and the final order in that Original Application was issued on 07.04.2022. It is submitted that the application for setting aside the ex parte along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for staying the sale by the Recovery Officer was filed on 25.02.2025, i.e just two days before the date fixed for sale. It is submitted that no sale took place on 27.02.2025 and the sale is now scheduled to be held on 29.04.2025. It is submitted that as on 11.09.2024, the amount due from the petitioner is Rs.47,33,375/-. It is submitted that there is absolutely no bona fides and the petitioner is unnecessarily trying to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that even a reading of the affidavit in support of the application for setting aside the ex parte order shows that there is no genuine reason for setting aside the ex parte order. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank and unless the petitioner were to show bona fides by depositing a substantial amount towards the loan liability, the question of setting aside the ex parte order does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, this writ petition is adjourned to be listed on 21.03.2025. It is made clear that unless the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards the loan liability, the question of considering the prayers in the writ petition does not arise.” Thereafter the matter came up for consideration before this court on 21-03- 2025 on which date it was adjourned to be listed today. Even today it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that no amount was remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order dated 10-03- 2025. Taking into consideration the detailed interim order dated 10-03-2025 and for reasons stated therein, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8113/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 29.7.2019 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EX PARTE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- I, ERNAKULAM DATED 7.4.2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE EXHIBIT P2 EX PARTE ORDER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY OF 1025 DAYS IN FILING THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE EX PARTE ORDER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION TO STAY THE AUCTION