HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J. W.ANo.2e8of2007 APPELLANT Versus\ Vijay Singh Kothari, son of Late Laxmital Ji Kothari, agedabout 47 years, resident of Link Road, Camp-il, Bhilai, District Durg. RESPONDENTS 1. Union Bank of India, a banking company duly incorporated under the retevant provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 having inter-alia amongst other branches a branch office at Main Branch, Ramsagarpara, Raipur through the Branch Manager, Branch OfficeS, Ramsagarpara, Raipur. 2. Akhil Bhartiya Guru Ghasidas Mahasamjti, a registered society under the Societies Act, 1959 having its registration No.665 through its authorized representative Shri Gulab Jain, son of Shri Lalchand Jain, Managing Director, M/s Bhilai Bullders Pvt. Limited, B- 2/11, Ravi'Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur 3. Shri Gulab Jain, son of Shri Lalchand Jain, resident of Choubey Colony, Raipur. 4. Smt. Rachna Jain, wife of Shri Pramod Jain, aged about 38 years, tesident of Near Gayatri Hospital,'.Rohinipuran, Raipur. WritAppeal under Section 2 (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006 Present : Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe appellant. None for the respondents. ORDER (19th February, 2008) The following order of'•the Court was passed by v ,C.J. Shri BP Sharma, counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. : 2) Appellant- Vijay Singh Kothari has fited this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 31rt August, 2007, passed in WP (C)No.5320of2007. 3$ The appellant / petitioner fited the writ petition for the following retiefs: "7.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issuecommandingand directing the respondent- Bank to produce before this Hon'ble Court a!l the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 7.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the entlre auction proceedings commenced by the respondent bank authorities for the enforcement of the alleged security interest over the shops No.8 & 9 being iliegal, arbitrary and not sustainabfe in law or if any auction has already taken place, then the same be deciared null and void and any interest created by the said auction be aiso declared having no legal significance and void in the eyes oflaw. ! 7.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue restoring back ,the f 4 padma by the parties in supportof their respective claims which course is not permissible in the proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Sndia. A declaration in favour of the appellant that he was entitled for the possession of Shop Nos.8 & 9 will certainly require leading of evidence by the appellant. 8) in this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmlty in the impugned order v/hereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed with liberty to take recourse to other remedy that may be available to him under law. 9) The writ appeat, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- •