IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 27966 of 2008 Between: 1) Smt.Ameebabee W/o.Late Jafar Shareef, R/o.Krishna Nagar Colony Suryapet,Nalgonda District 2) Sadath Shareef S/o.Late Jafar Shareef R/o.Krishna Nagar colony Suryapet, Nalgonda District 3) Sarver Shareef S/o.Late Jafar Shareef R/o.Krishna Nagar colony Suryapet, Nalgonda District 4) Smt.Rehba W/o.Syed Suleman, R/.o.Hanumanpet Secunderabad ... PETITIONERS AND 1) The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai rep.by its Registrar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 2) The Canara Bank, rep.by its Authorized officer Suryapet,Nalgonda District 3) Iqubal Shareef S/o.Lage Jafar Shareef R/o.Krishna nagar colony Suryapet,Nalgonda District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 8.12.2008 passed in IA.No.2329 of 2008 in SA.No.1098 of 2008 on the file of the 1st respondent Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai, and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following: O R D E R : (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Order dated 28.11.2008 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in I.A.No.1321 of 2008 in S.A. IR.No.265 of 2008 has been challenged by the respondent bank before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short, ‘the appellate Tribunal’). 2. The case of the petitioners is that the order passed by the Tribunal was a consent order and, therefore, the respondent bank could not have challenged the said order. 3. In our opinion, it would be just if the said submission is made before the appellate Tribunal. If such a submission is made before the appellate Tribunal, we are sure that it would consider the same in accordance with law. 4. It would be also open to the petitioners to make a request to the appellate Tribunal to advance the date of hearing of the appeal after giving intimation to the concerned respondent/(s) appearing before it. 5. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ December 23, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}