THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6847 of 2011 Date: 21-03-2011 Between: N.Venkateswara rao and another. ………. Petitioners and The Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and others. ……… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6847 OF 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in proceeding with sale insofar as ‘D’ schedule property is concerned pursuant to the auction notice published on 08-03-2011 in “the Hindu” newspaper and also proclamation of sale in R.P.No.48 of 2009 in O.A.No.154 of 2002, dated 24-02-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent fixing auction date as 29-03-2011 despite pendency of appeal filed by the petitioners in U.R.A.No.14 of 2009 in O.A.No.154 of 2002 on the file of the 1st respondent-Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‘Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner has stood as guarantor to the 5th respondent-company while obtaining loan from the 4th respondent-bank. When the 5th respondent failed to repay the loan amount, the 4th respondent-bank filed O.A.No.154 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd respondent-Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of amounts on various loan account heads from the petitioners as well as R-5 to R-15 jointly and severally. The O.A. was allowed and recovery certificate was issued accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed appeal in U.R.A.(Un Registered Appeal) No.14 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent-Tribunal, Chennai. Pending consideration of the appeal, the 4th respondent has filed recovery proceedings bearing R.P.No.48 of 2009 in O.A.No.154 of 2002 before the 2nd respondent in which they brought schedules A, B and D properties for sale. Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent in bringing ‘D’ schedule properties, the petitioners filed this writ petition contending that ‘D’ schedule properties belong to the 2nd petitioner and the said property was devolved upon her by virtue of a gift deed by her mother-10th respondent and further the said property is no way concerned with the recovery proceedings as the said property was not kept with the bank and no papers were signed by the 10th respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. As seen from the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending consideration before the Tribunal. Meanwhile the petitioners approached this court and filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents. When once the matter is seized by the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to decide the issue and adjudicate the matter. Therefore, if the writ petition is entertained at this stage, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and therefore, to avoid the issuance of parallel proceedings and future conflicts, we are declined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction to grant any direction in the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the 1st respondent-Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal in U.R.A.No.14 of 2009 filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the petitioners are permitted to move any interlocutory applications before the Tribunal, and on such filing of the same, the Tribunal shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 21-03-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Note: Issue C.C. in two days B/o. kvr