C. W. P. No. 19617 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. W. P. No. 19617 of 2007 Date of Decision : November 05, 2008. Mann Kaur and others .... Petitioners Vs. Syndicate Bank, Patiala and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. G. S. Anand, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. This petition seeks quashing of auction notice (Annexure P-3) and sale conducted on 20.11.2007 at the instance of respondent no.1 – Syndicate Bank. 2. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were in possession of the suit property which was owned by their predecessor Budh Singh, on which no charge had been created in favour of respondent no.1-Bank by the petitioners. 3. Case of respondent no.1 – Syndicate Bank is that Budh Singh had sold the suit property to Sukhwant Singh, who sold the same to C. W. P. No. 19617 of 2007 2 Dharminder Singh and Dharminder Singh mortgaged the suit property to Syndicate Bank. In default of repayment of loan advanced by respondent no.1-Bank to Dharminder Singh, the mortgaged property was sold, after complying with the statutory procedure, under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. According to the petitioners, Budh Singh never sold the property, nor executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Jarnail Singh, as shown in sale deed Annexure R-1/15. 5. Thus, a disputed question of title has been raised in the petition. While the petitioners claim to be owners of the suit property, according to the Syndicate Bank, the property stood sold by predecessor of the petitioners through his attorney and the subsequent purchaser mortgaged the same in favour of Syndicate Bank. 6. Writ proceedings are not appropriate for decision of the questions raised, particularly when alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. 7. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioners are relegated to alternative remedy. 8. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. It is however made clear that if the petitioners avail of alternative remedy, they would be at liberty to explain delay by pointing out that time was taken in proceedings in this Court, which will be considered by the concerned authority. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 05, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE