THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 16664 of 2010 and W.P. No. 4903 of 2011 Common order: The petitioner, who is doing business in medicines, in the name and style of M/s. Srinivas Medicals and General Stores, approached the respondents, namely State Bank of India, in the year 2006, for sanction of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for development of the said business. Accordingly, the respondents-Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, and the petitioner availed the said loan amount and towards security for the loan amount, he mortgaged the house property in question. As the petitioner committed default in repayment of the instalments, the respondents initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, and issued notice dated 21.06.2010 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and took possession of the property in question. Questioning the said possession notice, the petitioner ﬁled W.P. No. 16664 of 2010 contending that as the respondents without following the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act, for recovery of the loan amount, directly issued the possession notice, the same is liable to be set aside. On 19.07.2010, this Court while admitting the above writ petition granted interim stay of the impugned possession notice subject to the condition of the petitioner paying Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from that day, failing which the respondent are liberty to proceed further in the matter. The petitioner states that pursuant to the above interim order, he paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the respondents proceeded further and the District Magistrate, Nalgonda, issued orders dated 05.02.2011, for taking possession of the property in question. Questioning the said action, the petitioner states that he ﬁled S.A. No. 40 of 2011 along with stay application in I.A. No.155 of 2011, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the Debts Recovery Tribunal without considering the contentions raised by him, by order dated 18.02.2011 rejected the stay application. Questioning the above said order, the petitioner ﬁled W.P. No. 4903 of 2011 stating that the respondents in the guise that the stay application ﬁled by him is rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, is trying to dispossess him. That as on the date of ﬁling the writ petition, he paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which is over and above the amount directed to be paid by this Court, while granting stay of the possession notice, the respondents be directed not to dispossess and take possession of the property in question. This Court, by order dated 04.03.2011, while admitting the above writ petition, granted interim stay as prayed for by the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of four weeks, failing which, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled petition stating that he paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.03.2011 and he could not pay the balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/- immediately within a period of four weeks as directed by this Court, and that he paid the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.07.2011, and as there is delay in payment of the balance amount, the delay be condoned. This Court by order dated 25.08.2011 while condoning the delay in making the payment, and while directing listing of the matter after two weeks, directed the respondents not to take coercive steps, and directed the respondents-Bank to inform the petitioner with regard to the balance amount, liable to be paid by the petitioner along with the schedule of payment. The matter was adjourned on several occasions. The petitioner having obtained interim order, cannot be allowed to take advantage of it and avoid payment of dues to the respondents-Bank, by taking adjournments again and again. As per the statement furnished by the respondents- Bank, as on 07.09.2011, the petitioner is still liable to pay the respondents-Bank an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, which he was ordered to pay on or before 22.09.2011. It appears the petitioner has not paid the said amount. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already ﬁled S.A. No. 40 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, questioning the action of the respondents in issuing the possession notice, which is a statutory remedy, we are of the considered opinion that the continuation of writ proceedings before this Court, for the very same grievance and relief, are not necessary. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has paid the amounts as directed by this Court, by interim order dated 04.03.2011, to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing that till the disposal of the second appeal by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, status quo obtaining as on today with respect to the house property in question shall be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 28th November, 2011 KSR