1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4940 OF 2009 Hutatma Sahakari Bank Ltd and Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Shri Bhogilal Visanjeet Vedant and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shivajirao Masal, for Respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 27/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 waives service. By consent, this petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Bank has challenged the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune on an application, bearing Misc. Application No. 23 of 2009. T 2 3. Respondent no.1 filed an application, bearing Securitization Application No.34 of 2009, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, for several reliefs. In that application, he also prayed for setting aside the action of possession, in respect of the property described in the schedule. There is no dispute that the Bank had taken possession of the property long before Application No.34 of 2009 was filed by respondent no.1. In view thereof, respondent no.1 filed an application at Exhibit-5 and prayed for direction to the petitioner-Bank to restore possession of the property. That application was allowed by the Tribunal on 19.3.2009. By that order, the petitioners were directed to deliver possession of the property to respondent no. 1 within one month from the date of the order. Since the possession was not delivered, as directed vide order dated 19.3.2009, respondent no.1 filed Misc. Application No.23 of 2009 and on this application the impugned order has been passed. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus ; “Shri R.S.Jaju, Recovery Inspector is deputed to deliver possession of the suit property to the applicant. He shall give notice by fax or telephone to the opponents regarding the day of his visit and deliver actual possession of the suit property to the 3 applicant under Panchnama. He shall report compliance within a week from today.” 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated that I need not record reasons for setting aside the orders dated 21.5.2009 and 19.3.2009 and they have agreed for the following order. The order dated 21.5.2009 passed on M.A.No.23 of 2009 and the order dated 19.3.2009 passed on the application at Exhibit-5 in Securitization Application No.34 of 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, are set aside. The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to hear Securitization Application No.34 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order on merits in accordance with law. With these observations, rule is made absolute. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 4