1 GAUTAM CHAND RANKA VS. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4677/2000) Dated: 24.4.09. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Anil Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Vyas on behalf of Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondents. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal,Jaipur in Execution Case No. 43/97 , whereby the objections raised by the petitioner against the auction of residential house situated at Jhutha Gali, Raipur Marwar, District Pali in execution of the decree passed against M/s. Bohra Cement Pvt. Limited , stand rejected. 2. At the outset, a preliminary objection has raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 that against the order dated 17.10.2000 , an alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993( in short “the Act of 1993” hereinafter) therefore, there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner should be granted indulgence by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is not party to the proceedings pending before the Recovery Officer therefore, the remedy of appeal u/s 30 of the Act of 1993 is not available to him. That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the limitation for filing the appeal has already expired and therefore, the appeal, if any, preferred at this stage, may be dismissed by the Tribunal as barred by time. 4. A bare perusal of Section 30 goes to show that “any person aggrieved” by an order of Recovery Officer made under the Act may prefer an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 30 days from the date on which a copy of order is issued to him. In the instant case, the petitioner claim himself to be owner of the property in question which is sought to be auctioned in execution of the decree passed against M/s. Bohra Cement Private Limited whereas according to the petitioner he has nothing to do with the said company. In these circumstances, petitioner is certainly a person aggrieved by the order impugned dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Recovery Officer and he is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1993. 5. In considered opinion of this court, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not suggest any special feature so as to permit the petitioner to invoke the extra 3 ordinary jurisdiction of this court bypassing the remedy of appeal available under the relevant Statute. 6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal available to him u/s 30 of the Act of 1993 . If any appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of this order alongwith an application for condonation of delay , the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Since, the interim order dated 20.12.2000 granted by this court staying the further proceedings in pursuance of impugned order dated 17.10.2000 is operative till this date therefore, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the same shall further continue for a period of 30 days from the date of this order. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.