IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No14059 of 2008 SHOBHA DEVI Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS ----------- 3 23.09.2008 The petitioner finds herself in a peculiar predicament. Her property, consisting of several shops, estimated by her to value about Rs 70 lacs, were sold to respondent No 5 for about Rs 20 lacs for recovery of about Rs 14 lacs dues. She had statutory remedy of appeal which she preferred within time. The Bank and the purchaser being aware that the Presiding Officer of the debt Recovery Tribunal, where the appeal lays, not being permanently posted at Patna was unavailable for long periods, took expeditious steps to take over possession and coerce tenants into executing agreements in favour of the purchaser. In other words, all efforts by the respondent-Bank and the purchaser were taken to make the appeal infructuous for all purposes even though there was time to file the appeal which, as noticed above, was filed within time. Now, the petitioner had no option but to move this Court where an objection is taken by the bank that appeal is pending and, as such, this Court should not interfere. This Court was reluctant to interfere and wanted the Presiding Officer to take up the matter but, as noticed above, it is only on few days at times the Presiding Officer comes. The result is that neither the petitioner can move her stay application nor obtain order of stay. In such situation, I deem it fit that the order of sale made by the Recovery Officer on behalf of respondent-Bank in favour of 2 respondent No 5 be stayed till further orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. This disposes of the writ application. All parties are expected to cooperate before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for earlier disposal of the matter. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)