IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17095 of 2009 1.M/S RAJ ELECTRONICS, OPPOSITE PLANETARIUM, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR COLONY, SAICHAK, P.S. BEUR, P.O. ANISABAD, DISTRICT PATNA 2.M/S NEW PUNJAB RADO, OPPOSITE KULHARIA COMPLEX, ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA, THROUGH ITS PARTNER MRS. JYOTI SINGH, WIFE OF SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR COLONY, SAICHAK, P.S. BEUR, P.O. ANISABAD, PATNA 3.SMT. SANGITA PRASAD SINGH, WIFE OF LATE RAJDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR COLONY, SAICHAK , P.S.BEUR, P.O.ANISABAD, PATNA------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONERS Versus 1.CANARA BANK, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, THROUGH SENIOR MANAGER, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 2.DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, LAV- KUSH TOWER, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 3.ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 4.AUTHORISED OFFICER-CUM-MANAGER(CREDIT), CANARA BANK, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 5.MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PATNA MAIN BRANCH, SOUTH GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA---------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the respondents:Mr.R.K.P.Singh,Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocates ----- 4. 09.9.2010 Learned counsel for the respondent Bank takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that the relief now sought by the petitioners by filing I.A.No.6177/10 is for setting aside the sale of the property of the petitioner No.3 and restoration of the physical possession of the mortgaged property to petitioner No.3 and also to compensate the petitioner No.3 for the damage caused to the mortgaged house and property at the 2 time of eviction of the said petitioner and her family members. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier he had filed the writ application for a direction upon the respondent Bank and other respondents to consider proposal of settlement of all outstanding accounts of the petitioners in the light and spirit of the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the DRT, Patna and also for restraining them from taking any step under SARFAESI Act but before any interim order could be passed by this Court the respondent Bank had sold the mortgaged property and handed over the same to the purchasers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that various issues, including under-valuation of the property on a fresh valuation having been made more than three years after the earlier valuation, that too, by the Valuer of Muzaffarpur and not Patna at the behest of the Bank, arise in the matter which concern the valuable rights of the petitioners. He, however, admits that so far as the new issues that have arisen during the pendency of the writ petition from the action taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are matters for which provision of 3 statutory appeal has been made under Section 17 of the said Act. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ application is barred by existence of alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. It is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. However, it would be open to the petitioners to approach the statutory appellate authority under the provisions of the Act. In case an appeal is filed by the petitioners along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same within three weeks from today then the appellate authority shall consider the same in the light of the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing their remedies before this Court and during the pendency of the present matter the action has been taken by the respondent authorities of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/