IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11393 of 2011 Ashok Kumar, son of late Sudha Ranjan Sahu, resident of mohalla-Sahu Pokhar, P.S. Town, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. Allahabad Bank through its Chief Manager, Bihar Region, Patna 2. Chief Manager-cum-authorized Officer, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Ramna, Muzaffarpur 3. Assistant General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Muzaffarpur 4. Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Main Branch, Muzaffarpur 5. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Saraiyaganja, Muzaffarpur … Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For Respondent-Bank: Mr. Sanjay Singh Thakur, Advocate --------- 05/ 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For issuing and commanding the respondents to stop further proceeding i.e. sell process (Annexure 4) of mortgage property of the petitioner’s firm by the respondent-authorities till disposal of appeal S. no.127 dated 05.07.2011 which is already filed within time under section 17 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in the light of order dated 24.06.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8990 of 2011 by this Court. (ii) For directing and commanding the respondents to accept the admitted dues amount from the petitioner by extending some reasonable time. (iii) For directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over mortgage 2 property. (iv) For restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. (v) And also for any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is found to be legally entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Earlier the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 8990 of 2011 challenging possession notice dated 08.03.3011 issued by respondent-Bank under the provision of section 13(4) of the Act and for other ancillary reliefs. The said writ petition was finally heard on 24.06.2011 and was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail the opportunity of appeal under section 17 of the Act. It was also observed that if the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority within fifteen days along with a copy of that order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of the said writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. 4. Now learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the said order of this Court, the petitioner has filed Appeal No. 93 of 2011 within time granted by this Court under section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, but in the meantime the authorities have auction sold the said property to a third party at a much lower rate although the value of the property is over Rs.60,00,000.00 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is willing to pay the entire due amount to the respondents 3 within any reasonable time, which is higher than the amount paid by the auction purchaser, namely, Chandan Kumar. 6. It is quite apparent from the said order dated 24.06.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8990 of 2011 that liberty was also given to the petitioner to file an interlocutory application in appeal if any interim relief was required by the petitioner. 7. From the averments of learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that no such interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority although an appeal has been filed within time and is pending. In the said circumstances, if any interim order was required in the case, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to file an interlocutory application in the appeal for stay etc. and the said authority was to decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed with a liberty to the petitioner to file an interlocutory application in the appeal if he requires any interim order regarding stay etc. If such an application is filed within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the offer made by the petitioner. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)