JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed Ext.P4 interlocutory application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam for setting aside sale conducted on 29.11.2010 pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No 15/2007. Ext.P5 application for condoning delay was also filed under Section 19 (25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam by Ext.P9 dismissed both the applications. Challenging Ext.P9, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam. Contenting that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is not taken up for consideration by the DRT since there was no Presiding Officer appointed, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (c) No.3853/2022 and this Court passed an interim order directing not to dispossess the petitioner from the property. After the DRT-II commenced functioning, this Court by Ext.P11 Judgment disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to move the DRT–II, Ernakulam, appropriately for the reliefs which the petitioner has prayed for in the said writ petition. To enable the petitioner to approach the DRT–II, Ernakulam as above, this Court extended the interim order for a period of one month and further directed the DRT to dispose of the appeal within 3 months. By Ext.P12 Judgment the Division Bench of this Court modified Ext.P11 Judgment by extending the interim order till the disposal of Ext.P10 appeal.

2. In Ext.P10 appeal, the Registry of the Tribunal noted certain defects, particularly that the petitioner had not deposited with the Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the petitioner being not a borrower, the petitioner is not required to deposit fifty percent of the amount of debt due as provided under Section 30A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (the 'Act' for short). The Registry by Ext.P13 order declined to register the appeal as the petitioner did not deposit fifty percent of dues as provided under section 30A of the Act. Against Ext.P13 order of the Registry, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the DRT-II by Ext.P14 Order rejected the appeal and the petitioner was granted one week time to comply with the provisions of Section 30 A of the Act, failing which it was directed that Ext.P13 order will be treated as conclusive. In Ext.P14, the DRT found that since the loan was taken by the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of her mother in claiming right over the properties and therefore the petitioner cannot have independent right to raise claim over the property in question and as such she cannot claim any exemption to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit of amount contemplated under section 30A of the Act. It is challenging Ext.P14 order of DRT-II that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is not a person from whom any amount of debt is due to the bank, and therefore the petitioner is not liable to remit the fifty percent of the amount of debt due. It is further contended that there is no ' amount ' appealed against in Ext.P10 appeal and in the light of the v decision of this Court in Dhileep and others . Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam & others reported in 2008 (1) KHC 482, the petitioner is not liable to make the pre-deposit.

4. Sri. Mohan Jacob George, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent bank submits that in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Ext.P10 appeal is preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P9 order of the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Ernakulam, rejecting the application for setting aside sale conducted on 29.11.2010 pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by the DRT in O.A.No.15/2007. The appli