The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam to pass final orders in S.A. No. 220/14, which has been filed mainly for redelivery of the possession taken over. There is also a prayer to direct the 1st respondent to redeliver possession of the residential building taken over on 04.06.2014.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that, S.A.No.220/14 was finally heard on 04.07.2014 and thereafter it was adjourned to 31.07.2014 for pronouncing judgment. Instead of passing judgment, the matter was reopened for further hearing and it was heard on 19.08.2014. Still, no final order was passed and the matter was adjourned. The delay in finalising the proceedings, made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition for immediate interference.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.09.2014. the following order was passed;
“The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 04.04.2014, the S.A No.220 of 2014 was heard and it was posted for orders on 31.07.2014. Thereafter, it was finally heard on 19.08.2014 and the matter was taken up for orders. In spite of the willingness expressed from the part of the petitioners to deposit the entire amount demanded by the respondent Bank in a 'non-lien account' so as to cause restoration of the property, no orders are stated as passed till this day. The delay in passing orders is causing utmost loss and hardship to the petitioners. Hence, the proceedings before this Court.
The Registry is directed to call for a report within ten days.
List the matter for further consideration after ten days.”
4. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the course suggested from the part of the petitioner agreeing to deposit the entire amount due to the Bank in a 'no-lien account' subject to the outcome of the matter pending consideration before the DRT, is not acceptable to the Bank for various reasons. It is stated that the matter now being pursued by the petitioner is after different rounds of litigations by different persons in respect of the very same cause of action. It is stated that S.A. No.469/2011 was filed earlier, pursuant to issuance of Section 13(2) notice in the year 2011. The condition imposed was not satisfied and then the aggrieved party approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.9428/2013 where upon the liability was directed to be satisfied by way of 8 equal instalments beginning from 25.04.2013. It is stated that no payment was effected. The observation made by this Court in the said judgment was that, 'subject to the payment the S.A. already pending consideration would stand withdrawn'; which was not given effect to. It was thereafter, that the matter was referred to 'Lok Adalath', leading to Ext.P1 compromise, which was also not given effect to. The petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 14070/2014 seeking for further time, which prayer was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Still, the petitioners wanted to pursue the matter by filing S.A. No.220/2014, which is now pending consideration before the Tribunal.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 24.09.2014 a report was called for and the report bearing No. SA 220/14/OPDRT 86/2014 dated 01.10.2014 of the DRT, Ernakulam is placed on record. The reasons for the delay in finalising the proceedings have been explained in the said report. It is also stated that, the matter will be finally disposed of on or before 30th November, 2014.
6. After hearing both the sides, this Court grants time, till 30th November, 2014 for finalisation of the proceedings by the DRT, Ernakulam. The restoration of the property sought for by the petitioner shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the DRT as above.
With the above observation the OP(DRT) stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn