IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5890 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009. M/s Ram Pal & Associates and Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners are the auction-purchasers of the 'secured assets' of the guarantor(s) which have been sold in the proceedings initiated against the borrower(s) under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 2002 Act), read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioners claim that the sale has been confirmed in their favour on 10.5.2007. Thereafter, S.A. No.30 of 2007 has been instituted by the borrowers before the Tribunal challenging the action of the respondent-Bank. The borrowers also moved I.A. No.336 of 2007 and got an interim stay against their dispossession on 3.12.2007 upon deposit of a sum of Rs.44 lacs. The petitioners' precise grievance is that the disposal of the said S.A. Is being delayed, thereby, causing grave prejudice to them, who have already deposited the entire sale consideration and are still deprived of the fruits of the purchased property. Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners at some length, I am of the considered view that it would not be appropriate for this court to issue a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the pending S.A. in a time-bound manner. This Court is not aware of the total pendency, especially the oldest cases or the priorities, if any, given to such matters for the purpose of disposal by the DRT. Every court has its own methodology of docket management. There, however, appears to be some substance in the contention that the guarantor whose assets have been auctioned is not the aggrieved person before the DRT, yet the petitioner, who has deposited the entire sale consideration being the highest bidder, is made to suffer on both counts. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned DRT-I, Chandigarh to endeavour to decide S.A. No.30 of 2007 as early as possible and, if possible, preferably before 30th June, 2009, which can be possible only by refusing un-warranted adjournments to the parties. Disposed of. Dasti. April 21, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge