IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13265 of 2008 Between: Vuppalanchi Murlidhar Rao S/o. V.G. Shankar, Hindu R/o. Flat NO. 503, Tirumala Nivas Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Barkas Branch, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Maheswari Binny Rice Mill, Rep. by its Proprietor Smt. Papisetty Padma Madaram Village, Midgil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferablay a writ in the nature of Mandamus that the order passed in IA NO. 633 of 2008 in S.A.I.R.No.180 of 2008 dt. 17-6-2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad is without notice to the necessary party (Auction Purchaser) and as such declare the same as illegal, arbitrary mechanical unmindful and without any notice and opportunity and consequently set aside the impugned order as illegal, in the interests of justice and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-6-2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 633 of 2008 in SAIR No. 180 of 2008, the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that without hearing the petitioner, i.e., the auction purchaser, the impugned order has been passed. In our opinion, the proper course open to the petitioner was to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by submitting an application for his impleadment. We are sure that if such an application is filed, it would be entertained by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition so as to enable the petitioner to file an application for his impleadment before the Tribunal. It has been stated by the learned Advocate that the application shall be filed on or before 27-6-2008 before the Tribunal, so that the petitioner can present his case before the Tribunal. Permission for withdrawal of this petition is granted. It is directed that till 28-6-2008, no further action, which might be adverse to the petitioner shall be taken by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 25th June, 2008 ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR