Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) No. 3855/2007 % DATE OF DECISION : 16th July, 2008 J & K Bank Ltd. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. T.A. Mir, Advocate Versus Bank of Baroda & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pallav Saxena, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL) The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 17th May, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I in MA’s No. 34, 35 of 2007 and in an unnumbered appeal as well as the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed by the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III in RC No. 35/2006 whereby the auction sale held on 8th January, 2007 was confirmed by the Recovery Officer. On 21st May, 2007 this Court had, at the ex-parte stage, passed a detailed reasoned order. The relevant portion of the order dated 21st May, 2007 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :- “Petitioner's case is that the objections of the petitioner which had been filed in RC No. 35/2006 were registered as objection No. 1/2007. The notice of the objections had also been issued to the Certificate Holder Bank i.e. respondent No. 1 vide orders dated Page 2 of 2 8.1.2007. It was also observed that order on the objection No. 1/2007 would be passed before confirming the sale. The grievance of the petitioner is that this apparently was not done and vide order dated 12th March, 2007, the sale was confirmed observing that there was no objection pending with regard to the shops sold in public auction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was against the record as the objections were already filed and had not been disposed of. The crux of the controversy appears to be the petitioner's claim that the property i.e. shop Nos. 2 and 3 had been mortgaged by deposit of original title deeds while respondent No. 1 is also claiming to have mortgage created by deposit of original title deeds earlier to the mortgage in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the genuineness and authenticity of the title deeds is in question. In these circumstances, petitioner has a prima facie case for keeping in abeyance the sale confirmation. Order confirming the sale is directed to be kept in abeyance.” Since the unnumbered appeal filed by the Writ Petitioner is already pending before the Presiding Officer, DRT-III, we direct that our order dated 21st May, 2007 shall subsist and continue till the said appeal pending before the DRT-III is disposed of. In this view of the matter nothing further survives in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of but with no order as to costs. MUKUL MUDGAL, J MANMOHAN, J JULY 16, 2008 rn