IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11842 of 2010 MOHAN GOPE Versus THE CANARA BANK & ORS ----------- 2. 28.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank in advertising the assets for sale published in daily news paper “Hindustan” on 13.6.2010, by which sealed tender had been invited till 15.7.2010 and the same was to be opened on 16.7.2010. Learned counsel for the Canara Bank submits that no one has come forward pursuant to the said sale notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the Khatiyan with respect to the land in question as also a decree passed in Title Suit No.42 of 1985 on the basis of which he claims that the borrower respondent No.5, Dharmvir Prasad, has no authority to mortgage the properties of the petitioner to the Bank and the Bank also has equally no authority to sell the same for realization of its debts. Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has alternative - 2 - remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act itself by filing an appeal before the D.R.T. instead of approaching this Court at the first instance. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the Bank. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities of the Bank or the D.R.T., as he may be advised. In case any such representation/appeal is filed by the petitioner, the authorities of the Bank/D.R.T. shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )