A. ABDUL HAMEED Vs. SYNDICATE BANK, MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The impugned order was passed as back as on 14-3-2000. Already 13 years have elapsed. Recovery certificate was ordered to be issued about 13 years prior to this day. Writ petition is filed after lapse of 13 years, that too, without any reasonable cause. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) Petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. Petitioner is the borrower of the loan. The owner/mortgagor of the property is respondent 3. He had also not approached this Court since 13 years. Respondent 3-mortgagor was served before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, but, he chose to remain absent, having no other alternative, impugned order is passed issuing recovery certificate in exercise of power under Section 31-A of the Act. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, principle party who is affected i.e., owner of the property/mortgagor of the property is notified and he has remained absent, though was served.