JUDGMENT

The petitioner – Bank, has approached this Court asserting that Ext.P5 application has been made by them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam (DRT), to vacate an interim order granted by it; but alleges that same has not been considered by the DRT on account of the fact that it was not sitting.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the interim order granted by the DRT was a considered one and therefore, that the afore plea of the petitioner –

Bank is unsustainable.

3. In reply, Sri.Sunil Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Bank, submitted that his client has the right to seek that Ext.P5 be heard, but that this has not been done solely because the Tribunal was not sitting.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the legitimate rights of the litigants cannot be frustrated or defeated merely because of the reasons attributable to the Tribunal.

5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P5 must be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the DRT within a time frame.

Resultantly, this original petition is allowed with a direction to the DRT to take up Ext.P5 interim application of the pe