Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
MUHAMMED ALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court discusses the procedural context regarding possession and the petitioner's right to contest. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court's observations confirm that possession will not be taken until a scheduled review. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025)
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the CJM, Kasargod, under Section 14 . The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Advocate Commissioner, though appointed as per Ext.P7 has not issued any notice informing the date on which possession would be taken. It is also submitted that he has already applied for a certified copy of the proceedings under which Ext.P7 is passed and prays for breathing time to approach the DRT.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on instructions submitted that the petitioner earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P4 judgment on 20.02.2025 whereby, the overdue amount was directed to be paid in 10 EMIs. Thereafter, there was a default. The Bank has filed O.A and it is not numbered and the diary No. is given as 2211/2025. The petitioner also filed SA No. 413/2025 challenging Section 13(4) notice and the S.A is now posted to 22.12.2025. In
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
