IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.828 of 2008 ------ 1. Union Bank of India through its Chairman, represented through the Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Nasheman Building, Mazhrool Haque Path, Fraser Road, Patna. 2. The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Specialised Trading Branch, Exhibition Road, Patna. (Respondent No.1 & 2 in CWJC No.10932/2008) … Appellants. Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Singh , S/o Sri Indradeo Singh, resident of Akharaghat P.S. Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Indradeo Singh, resident of 51, Yamuna Apartment, S.K.Puri North, P.S.-S.K.Puri, District- Patna. ..(petitioners in CWJC No.10932/2008) Respondent/Opp.Party 1st Set 3. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 396, East Boring Canal Road, Patna. 4. Sri S.S.Shukla, S/o Shri Surya Mani Shukla, R/o Purani Gudri, P.O. –Ramna, District-Muzaffarpur presently working as Lead District Manager, Union Bank of India, Gola Road, Samastipur. 5. Sri Nagendra Prasad, S/o Late Laxmi Sah, R/o Sri Sheohar Sadan, Hathi Chowk, P.S.-Mithanpura, presently working as Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Suttapati Branch, District-Muzaffarpur. 6. Sri Ashtosh Kumar, S/o Sri Ram NarayanThakur, R/o Laxmi Narayan Nagar P.O.-Bela Ashram, District-Muzaffarpur, presently working as Senior Manager Union Bank of India, Muzaffarpur Branch, Muzaffarpur. 7. Sri Arbind Kumar Singh, S/o Late Deochandra Prasad Singh, R/o Sandho Compound Damu Chowk, District-Muzaffarpur. 8. Sri Vidhu Chirantan, S/o Sri Dr. Brajkishore, R/o South of Church, Mithanpur, Muzaffarpur presently working as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, KDKM,District-Muzaffarpur. …. (Respondents in CWJC No.10932/2008) Respondent/Opp.Party 2nd Set ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Binod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. A. Sharan, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T - 2 - Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th November, 2008. Mr. Binod Kumar Kanth, the senior counsel for the appellants while assailing the ex-parte order dated 22nd August, 2008 would submit that the order has been passed by the Single Judge, making certain observations with regard to the sale effected in favour of some of the officers of the bank by directing that physical possession shall not be handed over by the Debt Recovery Tribunal to the purchasers when, in fact, possession had already been handed over to the purchasers must before that. 2. By the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2008, the Single Judge has ordered enquiry to be made in respect of sale effected at the instance of the Bank but confirmed in favour of some of its officers. The Single Judge has kept the matter after six months. 3. Much can be said in respect of the sale confirmed in favour of the officers of the bank, and in this background, if the Single Judge ordered enquiry to be made by Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi and kept the matter after six months, the course adopted by the Single Judge cannot be said to be legally flawed. 4. As regards possession, what has been directed by the Single Judge is that if physical possession has not been handed over by the Debt Recovery Tribunal to the purchasers, it shall not be so handed over to them. Obviously, if the possession has already been handed - 3 - over to the purchasers, the impugned order does not affect such transfer of possession until consideration of the matter further by the Single Judge. In any case the bank should not have any grievance with regard to that. 5. It is true that by the order dated 22nd August, 2008, further proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal have been stayed but since the order is ex-parte, it is always open to the appellants who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition to apply to the Single Judge for modification/variation of the said order so that proceedings before the Tribunal may continue, save and except the proceedings relating to sale of subject plots confirmed in favour of bank officers. Obviously, if such an application is made, the Single Judge would consider the same and pass an appropriate order. 6. Before we close, we may observe that by way of supplementary affidavit filed today, the Bank has expressed its willingness for fresh auction sale of the properties/assets at Bochaha, Muzaffarpur. Of course, such willingness is subject to over and above the price at which the property has been sold by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. This aspect of the matter may be brought to the notice of the Single Judge by an appropriate application which may also be considered by the Single Judge in accordance with law. 7. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ - 4 - Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/