IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2608 of 2011 1. FARM SOLUTIONS TRADING PVT.LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANIYARPUR, VAISHALI, BIHAR AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 217, PATLIPUTRA COLONY, PATNA-13 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJESH SINGH SON OF RAM KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-MANIYARPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI, BIHAR. 2. RAJESH SINGH SON OF RAM KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MANIYARPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI, BIHAR………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH CGM, STATE BANK OF INDIA, (LOCAL HEAD OFFICE), MAIN BRANCH, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BORING ROAD BRANCH, PATNA. 5. SAVALIA SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, RESIDENT OF RAJPUT COLONY, HAJIPUR.……………………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate. For the Bank : M/s Aditya Sharan, Hemant Kr. Sharan and Prabhat Kr. Sharan, Advocates. For respondent no.5 : Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Bank and its authorities as well as learned counsel for auction purchaser (respondent no.5). 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging notices and steps taken by the authorities of the Bank under section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and also challenging Public Auction Notice dated - 2 - 09.01.2011 for sale of the property. 3. By an interlocutory application the subsequent auction purchaser was also impleaded as respondent no.5 and relief was sought against him also. 4. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as their respective pleadings on affidavit and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioners have got adequate and efficacious remedy in the form of appeal under section 17 of the Act. In such an appeal all the points taken before this court can be legally taken by the petitioners and they can also raise the question of amicable settlement between the petitioners, the authorities of the Bank and the subsequent auction purchaser. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed within 15 days from today along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereafter. If the petitioners want any interim relief, they may file an interlocutory application in the appeal which also the appellate authority shall decide expeditiously in accordance with law. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)