THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.3149 OF 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding with order of attachment of immovable property bearing R.P.No.162 of 2003 in O.A.No.834 of 2002, dated 29-08-2006, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is the General Power of Attorney Holder of the other petitioners 2 to 8. They have purchased the schedule property from R-6 after following the due procedure. However, while they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property, they came to know that R-6 mortgaged the said property with the R-1 bank as a collateral security for the loan amount released in favour of R-2 to R-5. Further they also came to know that in collusion with R-1, R-6 also obtained ex parte order for attachment of the schedule property issued by the Recovery officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in R.P.No.162 of 2003 in O.A.No.834 of 2002, dated 29-08-2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred claim petition No.34 of 2008 before the Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, which was dismissed on 16- 11-2009. Again the petitioners preferred appeal vide A.O.R.No.06 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted conditional stay restraining R-1 from taking further proceedings against the schedule property subject to condition that the petitioners shall deposit with the respondent bank 25% of the Rs.1,20,34,006/- (as mentioned in the Recovery Certificate). Pending adjudication of the matter before the Tribunal, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition challenging the said order of attachment passed by the Recovery officer, Tribunal, Visakahaptnam. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-bank and also the learned counsel for R-6. 4. As seen from the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending consideration before the Tribunal. Meanwhile the petitioners approached this court and filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the 1st respondent-bank. When once the matter is seized by the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to decide the issue and adjudicate the matter. Therefore, if the writ petition is entertained at this stage, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and therefore, to avoid the issuance of parallel proceedings and future conflicts, we are declined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction to grant any direction in the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 28-02-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR kvr/sp