IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4631 of 2009 Lalit Kumar Arora, S/o Shri Mohanlal Arora, Resident of Mohalla Ganga Babu Ki Theki, P.S. Chowk Kalan, P.O. Begampur, District- Patna. ……Petittioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 2. The Central Bank of India having Head Office situated at Mumbai through its Chairman. 3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branchm, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. …..Respondents. With CWJC No.4629 of 2009 Suresh Kumar Arora, S/o Shri Mohanlal Arora, Resident of Mohalla Ganga Babu Ki Theki, P.S. Chowk Kalan, P.O. Begampur, District- Patna. ……Petittioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 2. The Central Bank of India having Head Office situated at Mumbai through its Chairman. 3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branchm, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. …..Respondents. ----------- 02. 13.04.2009 It appears that two certificate proceedings were instituted by the Central Bank of India, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna being O.A. No. 03 of 2003 and O.A. No. 04 of 2003. The certificates issued thereunder not having been honoured R.P. Case No. 06 of 2005 and R.P. Case No. 12 of 2004 were instituted respectively before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Bihar at Patna. Petitioners’ grievance is that they recently came to know that a property which they had purchased by registered sale deed in 1977 and which they never mortgaged or offered as collateral - 2 - security for any money advanced by the Central Bank of India, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna, yet its properties were being sought to be sold in the two proceedings aforesaid. Inquiries have revealed that petitioners’ vendors having sold the properties in 1977 fraudulently, mortgaged those properties in 1998 or thereabout to the Central Bank of India for securing certain financial accommodation and on basis of those fraudulent mortgages petitioners’ properties are now being sought to be sold. They contends at the DRT, Patna that there is neither a full time Presiding Officer nor a full time Recovery Officer both of them come intermittently for some days in a month of which due publicity is not given. In those circumstances petitioners are unable to seek any remedy. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Central Bank of India points out that now Recovery Officer has been permanently appointed to DRT, Patna and he is now available regularly. Therefore, if the petitioners have any grievance they are free to raise those objections before the said officer. Now, Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is only last evening petitioners came to know that the entire property of theirs have been sold by DRT though the full consideration thereof has not yet been deposited nor sale confirmed. - 3 - In my view, the questions involved are questions of fact which can better be appreciated by the Recovery Officer, at the first instance subject to verification of documents. Prima facie if what the petitioners submit is correct then a serious fraud has been perpetuated. It requires thorough inquiry. I, therefore, direct the petitioners to move immediately to the Recovery Officer in the proceedings aforesaid and file their objections in detail supported by documents. On such objections being filed by 18th April, 2009 before the DRT, Patna the Recovery Officer would notice the parties and hear the objections on merits. It is only after he decides the objection that it would proceed further in the two recovery proceedings for confirming the sales as purported to be made on behalf of the Bank. It appears that the copies of the mortgaged documents in the OA applications have already been filed by parties. Copies of those documents, on petitioners filing the objections would be made available to the petitioners by the DRT. With these observations, the two writ petitions stands disposed of. Vikash/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)