CWP No.22632 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22632 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.08.2011 A.K. Sinha and another ... Petitioners Versus Canara Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saquib Ali Khan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate, for the non-applicant/petitioners. Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Recovery Officer on 30.09.2010 rejecting the claim of the judgment debtor that the direction for sale of the property, even without notice as required by law, was not valid in law. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It appears that the Debts Recovery Tribunal stayed further proceedings and directed the appeal to be heard to another date. Against the refusal to give interim order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and when it came for orders on 24.11.2010, it appears that auction had already taken place CWP No.22632 of 2010 (O&M) [2] on 22.11.2010. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It is against these orders that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed only against the Creditor Bank and the Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the auction purchaser moved an application for impleadment before this Court and the same also appears to have been allowed. Against this order, there is reported to be an appeal pending before the Division Bench. The counsel for the petitioner seeks for time setting out the fact of pendency of the appeal before the Bench against the order directing impleadment. 3. Both the Bank appearing through counsel and the party ordered to be impleaded and whose impleadment was the subject of the appeal before the Division Bench oppose the plea by stating that an amount `4,34,50,000/- has already been deposited and the pendency of the case is used by the petitioner not to proceed with the case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If, the petitioner's grievance is that he should be heard on merits before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the appeal against the order passed by the Recovery Officer, I shall grant that relief to the petitioner and direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Recovery Officer in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel states that while preferring an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the decision of the Recovery Officer, there had been a direction for payment of court-fee, which was forced to be done on the petitioner. The said point is not a subject of challenge in this writ petition and for any grievance or any direction relating to payment of court-free, the CWP No.22632 of 2010 (O&M) [3] petitioner will have an independent remedy before the authority, which entertained the appeal in a further revisional jurisdiction to the DRT and not before this Court. 5. I also considered the issue of whether the pendency of the appeal to the Division Bench against the interim order will have any bearing of the disposal of the writ petition. In my humble view, the pendency will not have a bearing and I am granting to the petitioner the relief which he asked for in the writ petition by directing the disposal of the appeal pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The validity of the order passed by the Recovery Officer cannot be a subject of adjudication before this Court because it is already a subject matter for adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The issue of whether auction purchaser in the auction proceedings pending consideration of the inquiry will be a necessary party shall still be a matter, which will survive for consideration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal itself. 6. It is open to the parties to seek for appropriate direction for disposal of the appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is requested that the Debts Recovery Tribunal considers the appeal and dispose of the same on merits within a period of eight weeks from the order uninfluenced by any observation that may have been made by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. 02nd August, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE