Cl "> HON'BLE V.K. SHRJVAS7AVA, J. Writ Patitton {C} No. 6178 OF Smt. Pratibha Maravi W/o Shri Dildar Singh Maravi, aged about 33 years, R/o C/o Pritam slngh, H. No. 453, Housing Board Colony, Raipur, Tehsil & Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh State Bank of India, Phaphadih Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Officer cum Present: Shri Abhijit C Thakur, counse! for the petitioner. (Passed on 10-11-2008) The following oral order of the Court was passed by i.R. Nayak, CJ. This writ petition is directed against the refusa! of the Debts ^ecover/ Tribunal (for short "the DRT"), Jabalpur to grant ad-lnterim injunction sought by the petitioner herein in an application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financia! Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Acf). The foiiowi'ng is the reason by the DRT to refuse ad-interim injunctlon: "Having heard She Ld. Counse! for appiicant and after going through the records it appears that bank has taken possession u/s 13(4) of Securitisation AcS in the month of August 2005. As per Section 17 of Securitisation Act, application is to be fiied within 45 iays from the date of measures taken u/s 13(4) of Securitisation Act. On drawing attention the point of limitati'on Shri Thakur has submitted that deiay may be r -2-- condoned. Appficant has not fiied any appiication for condonation of detey. Not only this appficant has fiied Instant appiication on 9-10-06 and the applicatlon for urgent hearing is fiied on 10-10-2006, whereas auction is scheduied for tomorrow i.e. 12-10-2006. tt means the applicant any hov/ wants ex parts order in their It wil! riot be out of place to mention here that teged agreement of construction of house is between the applicant and the Builder and the Bank is not the party to the sald agreement. More so amount cannot be disbursed to the bui!der without the consenVauthorifri,' of the applicant, therefore, contention of applicant ShaS bank has disbursed amount in connivance with the buiider c-annot be prima facie accepted. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, ! do not find strong prima facie case to grant exparte ad interim reiief, therefore, prayer is rejected". '<, Furthermore, we are to!d that as proposed the auctlon w'as conducted on 12-10-2CX36. The discretlon exercised by the DRT couid not be condemned as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the discretlon exerclsed by the DRT. Ths \wit petitionjs devoid of merit and it is according'y dismissed. Nocosts. [ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge 5^bS>ui