THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.7265 of 2011 ORDER (per GM,J): Smt. Valluri Nanditha, who is the mother of the petitioners 3 and 4, has filed the affidavit on behalf of the petitioners in this writ petition stating that the 4th respondent has availed loan from the 1st respondent bank in the year 2005. The respondents 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the said alleged transaction by depositing the title deeds of the house properties with the bank. It is further stated that in fact, the said properties are owned by late Rathaiah, the husband and father of the respondents 2 and 3, respectively. However, the said Rathaiah executed a Will dated 17-04-2006 bequeathing the schedule properties to the petitioners. In this connection, the petitioners 3 and 4 had filed suits for declaration of title over the schedule properties and obtained stay. The petitioners 1 and 2 have also filed suits for declaration and title over the schedule properties and obtained stay. While so, the 1st respondent-bank initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstructionof Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘SARFAESI Act’) and Possession Notice, dated 01-09-2008, was given under Section 13 (4) of the Act. It is further stated that R-2 and R-3 have no authority of law to guaranteeing the debt of the 4th respondent since they are not the owners of the schedule properties. Further, the petitioners have filed claim petition in the form of appeal before the Tribunal in S.A.No.259 of 2008 along with I.A.No.1031 of 2008 seeking interim stay. The Tribunal has passed interim order, dated 25- 09-2008, granting stay, which reads as follows: “Hence, in view of the above, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Possession Notice dated 01-09- 2008. The petitioners are permitted to take personal notice on the respondent and serve a copy of this order. The receipt of the copy of the order by the respondent is deemed to be receipt of notice in the main S.A. as well as in the I.A.” Subsequently, the Tribunal by its order dated 31-12-2009 in S.A.No.259 of 2008, vacated the stay granted on 25-09-2008, which reads as follows: “No representation on behalf of R-2 and R-3. The proceedings dated 18- 11-2009 shows that there is no representation on behalf of applicant and the matter is posted today for dismissal. The record shows the notice set to R-1 is not to the party mentioned in S.A. Today, the counsel for applicant present. In view of the proceedings dated 18-11-2009, the interim orders dated 25-9-2008 are vacated.” Again the petitioners have filed I.A.No.179 of 2010 in S.A.No.259 of 2008 to recall the order dated 31-12-2009 and to revive the interim order dated 25- 09-2008. While the matters stood thus, the 1st respondent-bank got published sale-cum-auction notice, dated 19-02-2011 covering the said house property. Then the petitioners filed I.A.No.201 of 2011 seeking stay of proposed auction dated 25-03-2011 along with another petition in I.A.No.200 of 2011 seeking to advance hearing from 30-03-2011 to 11-03-2011, but however, the said I.As are posted to 30-03-2011, while the date of sale is fixed on 25-03-2011. Thus, the 1st respondent is proceeding with the sale in terms of the auction notification. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court ad filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank and perused the record. 3. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in I.A.No.1031 of 2008 in S.A.No.259 of 2008 dated 25-09-2008 was deemed to be the receipt of notice since the receipt of a copy of the order by the respondent is deemed to be the receipt of the notice. In view of the same, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the order dated 31-12-2009 in the main S.A. vacating the order dated 25-09-2008, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed serious error. He further contended that however, when the petitioners have filed I.A.No.179 of 2010 in the main S.A. to recall the order dated 31-12-2009 and to revive the interim order dated 25-09-2008 and the same are pending consideration, the 1st respondent-bank got issued sale- cum-auction notice, dated 19-02-2011 covering the said house property. Then the petitioners filed I.A.No.201 of 2011 seeking stay of proposed auction dated 25-03-2011 along with another petition in I.A.No.200 of 2011 seeking to advance hearing from 30-03-2011 to 11-03-2011, but however, the said I.As are posted to 30-03-2011, while the date of sale is fixed on 25-03-2011. He further contended that though the application was filed on 27-01-2009 under Section 22 (1) of the Act, till today no action was taken by the Tribunal and that the officials of bank are proceeding with the auction and they came to the petitioners and demanded to vacate the house properties stating that they are going to auction the house properties on 25-03-2011. Therefore, he prayed to defer the auction till the disposal of the I.A.s filed by the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Sri P.A.V.Bala Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Bank contended that the petitioners filed I.A.No.179 of 2010 on 28-01-2010 before the Tribunal, but they have not evinced any interest to proceed with the matter for more than one year and that after the recovery proceedings were issued, suddenly they came to the picture and filed this writ petition. He further contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have properly created equitable mortgage of the properties as security to the loan availed by the 4th respondent. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 and 3 have no right and title over the schedule property and there is a dispute of genuineness of guarantee allegedly given by the 2nd respondent and that they misled the 1st respondent-bank. Hence, the Tribunal may take up the matters in I.A.Nos.179 of 2010 and 201 of 2011 and pass appropriate orders therein without causing any unnecessary complications with regard to the house properties. 6. We have seen some force in the contention urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner since when once the application is pending and the same is not disposed of because of the inaction on the part of the presiding officer, the party should not be put to inconvenience or to suffer irreparable injury or loss. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Tribunal has already passed an order on 25-09-2008 in I.A.No.1031 of 2008 in S.A.No.259 of 2008 holding that the receipt of a copy of this order is deemed to be the receipt of a notice in the main S.A., the Tribunal ought not to have passed the second order dated 31- 12-2009 in S.A.No.259 of 2008 holding that there is a lack of service to the notice. Hence, the request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has to be considered by the Tribunal. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the I.A.Nos.179 of 2010 and 201 of 2011 in S.A.No.259 of 2008 on the next date of hearing and on that day, the Tribunal shall sit and take up this matter and proceed with the same as expeditiously as possible and till such time, the respondent-bank is directed not to proceed with the auction. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to cots. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 23-03-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow. B/o. kvr