THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 21768 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, the counsel appearing for the respondent bank. In this writ petition, the petitioners call in question the proclamation of sale dated 24.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Recovery Officer, in connection with the proceedings in R.P. No. 165 of 2003 in O.A. No. 323 of 2002, putting the property of the petitioners to sale by way of auction, for recovery of the amounts due and payable by the petitioners to the respondent bank. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner has earlier moved this Court by way of writ petition being W.P. No. 3431 of 2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 11.04.2008, holding that it is open to the respondents to execute the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in O.A. No. 323 of 2002 for the purpose of liquidating the liability of the writ petitioner and while liquidating the liability of the petitioner, the amounts deposited by the petitioner, such as Rs. 1 lac, a reference of which was made to in the communication dated 11.01.2008 and Rs. 6 lacs, which was said to have been deposited on 29.03.2008, in pursuance of the interlocutory order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, shall be given credit to. Thereafter, when possession notice and proclamation of sale were issued, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 10352 of 2011. This Court, having observed that the proceedings were initiated in pursuance of the judgment rendered by this Court in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 3431 of 2008, held that the impugned proceedings of proclamation of sale were issued only in accordance with law and there were no merits in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the said writ petition, by order dated 21.06.2011. Now, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, which is third round of litigation. The approach of the petitioners in filing writ petitions one after other and making attempts to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the recovery of amounts due and payable by them to the bank is nothing but abuse of process of law and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief much less the relief sought by them. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made a representation to the bank, on 23.07.2011, seeking some more time to pay the amounts due. If any such application is filed, the respondent bank is at liberty to consider the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 2nd August 2011 IBL