MANOJ THOMAS Vs. CAN FIN HOMES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition arises from T.S.A.No.512 of 2016 on the file the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The petitioner is the applicant in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the original petition are the following: The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the respondent. When the petitioner committed default in remitting the instalments of the loan, the respondent initiated proceedings against the property mortgaged to them by the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The possession notice issued by the authorised officer of the respondent in this connection has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the said proceedings on various grounds. The Securitisation Application (the SA) preferred by the petitioner has been heard by the Tribunal on 23/6/2016. It is seen that in the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner sought time to settle the matter with the respondent and in the light of the said submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 13/7/2016 for reporting settlement. The petitioner, however, could not arrive at a settlement with the respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A No.346 of 2016 in the SA seeking leave of the Tribunal to amend the SA with a view to incorporate two additional grounds and consequent prayers in the SA. Later, the petitioner approached this court by filing O.P. (DRT).No. 76 of 2017 alleging that the Tribunal is taking steps to dispose of the SA without considering the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner. This court disposed of the said original petition as per Exhibit P5 judgment directing that the Tribunal shall consider and pass orders on the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner on 9/8/2017 itself on which day the SA stood posted. The case of the petitioner is that on 9/8/2017, when the matter was taken up, though the Tribunal insisted the counsel for the petitioner to argue both the application for amendment as also the SA, the counsel for the petitioner argued only the application for amendment; that in terms of the endorsement in the A Diary of 9/8/2017, the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the said day itself and the SA was adjourned to 10/8/2017; that though the petitioner preferred an application for a certified copy of the order passed on the application for amendment, the same was not issued to the petitioner and that the Tribunal is likely to dispose of the SA even before the certified copy of the order applied for by the petitioner is issued. The prayer in the original petition is, therefore, for a direction to the Tribunal to issue the certified copy of the order passed on the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner and to keep in abeyance further proceedings in the SA for a period of one month to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the order passed by the Tribunal on the application for amendment.

(3.) On 18/8/2017, this court passed an interim order directing the Tribunal to keep in abeyance further proceedings in the SA for a period of 10 days, and directing the Tribunal to issue to the petitioner a copy of the order passed on the application for amendment preferred by him.