The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition filed to challenge the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order refusing to set aside an ex-parte final decree. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's case for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2017/3RD JYAISHTA, 1939
OP (DRT).No. 60 of 2017 (O)
IA.NO.2541/2015 AND IA.NO.2546/2015 IN O.A.NO.274/2009 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER :
JESSIYA, W/O. AHMED, CHANAYIL, VADUTHALA, AROOKUTTY.P.O., CHERTHALA.
BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
RESPONDENT(S):
1. P.K.NAZAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. OCEAN WIDE MARINE EXPORTERS 16/2/9A, PALIKAMDI HOUSE, JACOB'S ROAD, THOPPUMPADI, KOCHI-687 205
2. JASMINE NAZAR, W/O.P.K.NAZAR, 16/2/9A, PALIKAMDI HOUSE, JACOB'S ROAD, THOPPUMPADI, KOCHI-687 205
BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA
THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP(DRT).NO.60/2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. O.P.(DRT).No.60 of 2017 ............................................................. Dated this the 24nd day of May, 2017
J U D G M E N T
This O.P(DRT) is filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), whereby the said authority dismissed an I.A preferred by the petitioner for setting aside an ex-parte final order that was passed against her on 31.01.2011. On a perusal of Ext.P1 order passed by the DRT, I find that, the DRT had gone in to the contention raised by the petitioner to justify the non-appearance at the time of the final hearing of the O.A, which culminated in the final order passed on 31.01.2011. The Tribunal finds that the petitioner did not make out a case warranting the exercise of a discretion to set aside the exparte decree. On a perusal of reasons in Ext.P1, I am convinced that the petitioner has not made out out a case warranting an interference with the said order in these proceedings. Accordingly, the O.P(DRT) is dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to move the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for appropriate relief against the order and decree of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the Original application.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/24.05.17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the impugned order dismissing the IA for setting aside an ex-parte final order.
JESSIYA, W/O. AHMED, CHANAYIL, VADUTHALA, AROOKUTTY.P.O., CHERTHALA
P.K.NAZAR
JASMINE NAZAR
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
