IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19469 of 2008 Between: Bank of India, A Body of Corporate Constituted Under the Banking Companies Act V of 1970, Bandara Kurla Complex, Bandar (East), Mumbai-I, And a branch Office amongst other places at Malakpet Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Debt Recovery, Tribunal at Hyderabad. 5th Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 N. Aruna Devi, W/o. Sri N. Pradeep Rao, R/o. Plot No. 613, Kakatiya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 3 N. Pradeep Rao, S/o. N. Yathiraja Rao, R/o. Plot No. 613, Kakatiya Nagar Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 4 Lalitha Narayan, S/o. Sri Hari Ram Agarwal, R/o. 21-7-664, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ in the nture of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction calling for records relating to and connected with I.A.No. 904/2008 in S.A.No. 230/2008, dated 14-08-2008 on the ﬁle of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an exparte ad-interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No. 904 of 2008 in S.A.No. 230 of 2008, dated 14-8-2008, this petition has been filed. In our opinion, the better course for the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal with an appropriate application for getting the stay vacated rather than to approach this Court by filing this petition. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In our opinion, he can do the same thing before the Tribunal after filing the reply. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, without complete details, we would not like to interfere with the exparte ad-interim order. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal and we are sure that the Tribunal shall consider the reply, which might be ﬁled by the petitioner and hear the matter at an early date. The petition stands disposed of as rejected with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Note: Copy in three days. /B.O/ GRR