THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.17824 OF 2010 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard both the counsel. 2. From the material on record it could be seen that the 3rd respondent is the owner of the plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.358 and 411 part, situate at Pasumala village and Gram Panchayt, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Rangareddy. He obtained loan from the 2nd respondent – Bank by creating equitable mortgage of the subject property. The petitioner purchased the said property from the 3rd respondent by entering into a registered agreement of sale on 10.1.2007. As the 3rd respondent committed default in payment of loan amount, the 2nd respondent issued auction notice dated 25.10.2007. Challenging the said auction notice and contending that since he is in possession of the property, he is entitled for notice under Section 13(4)(d) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Assets Act, 2002, the petitioner filed Securitization Application No.175 of 2007 on the file of 1st respondent – Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order dated 20.11.2009, the S.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Against the order passed by the Tribunal, a statutory appeal is provided and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Apex Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SATYAWATI TONDON[1] held as under: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 4. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. No costs. --------------------------- ---- GHULAM MOHAMMED,J --------------------------- ------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:24.08.2010 AVS [1] SLP( C ) NO.10145 OF 2010 dated 26.07.2010