SUSEELA v. JOSHY JOSEPH
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
JOSHY JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MANIYATT, DEEPAM LANE,MANANNJALAM, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM.
THE MANAGER ALLAHABAD BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. IX r. 9; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 Mar 2009. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.