1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2834/2011 (Ajay Suresh Chimote VERSUS The Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the R-2 to 4. Shri S.N. Kumar and Shri S.A. Lavtawar, counsel for the R-8 & 9. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 21 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on 15.06.2011 and also the auction sale dated 30.12.2010. The petitioner has sought a further direction to the respondent nos.8 and 9 restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest in the property. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.5, a Nationalized Bank through its Authorized Officer, had issued a notice calling for the auction sale of the property on 30.12.2010. The said notice was received by the petitioner, a co-owner of the same, on 16.12.2010. The petitioner had raised an objection to the notice of auction sale before the Authorized Officer of the Bank and the said objection is, 2 according to the petitioner, yet not decided. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner had not received any communication about the confirmation of auction sale and the petitioner was under an impression that the auction sale notice was withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2, 3 and 4, who were the bidders at the auction, had filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, challenging the auction sale conducted by the Bank in favour of respondent nos.8 and 9. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner was joined as a party respondent to the appeal filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4 the petitioner was not heard in the matter and the appeal of the respondent nos.2 to 4 was dismissed by the judgment dated 15.06.2011. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2011 is liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the petitioner was not heard in the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2011 has caused prejudice to the petitioner as it is observed in paragraphs 12 and 18 of the impugned judgment that nobody had raised any objection in the matter, when the petitioner had specifically raised an objection to the notice of auction sale. Though the submission made on behalf of the petitioner about the denial of hearing seems to be good at the first blush, after considering the facts of the case, the same is found to be devoid of merit. Firstly, in the appeal filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4, no relief was sought against the 3 petitioner. Secondly, even assuming that a relief was sought, there is no reason for filing this petition as the appeal filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4 is dismissed. We fail to follow as to how a petition could be entertained at the behest of the petitioner, when the appeal filed against the petitioner is dismissed. It appears that by banking on the ground that no hearing was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is attempting to stay the confirmation of the sale in favour of the respondent nos.8 and 9, when the petition against the dismissal of the appeal is not tenable at the behest of the petitioner. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur was deciding an appeal filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4, the unsuccessful bidders at the auction sale, and by the judgment dated 15.06.2011, the appeal filed by the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 came to be dismissed. It is most likely that the petitioner was not heard in the matter as the petitioner could not have been aggrieved by the judgment since he was not a contesting party. Moreover, when the appeal was being dismissed, there was all the more no reason to hear the petitioner. The contesting parties were the respondent nos.8 and 9 and the Bank. Since the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur was considering the appeal, filed by the unsuccessful bidders against the respondents, which included the respondent nos.8 and 9 and the Bank, which were the contesting parties, the Tribunal rightly heard the respondent nos.8 and 9 and the Bank, in the matter. The impugned judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur cannot be challenged by the petitioner merely because there are some observations about the absence of filing of an objection by the petitioner in 4 paragraphs 12 and 18 of the impugned judgment. Prima- facie, the observations cannot be said to be incorrect as the so- called objection of the petitioner is to the notice calling the public auction and not to acceptance of bid of respondent nos.8 and 9. It is necessary to refer to the so-called objection at Annexure-IV, in that regard. Assuming that the observations are factually incorrect, they can be ignored. However, a petition is not tenable on this ground. None other than the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 can be said to be aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on 15.06.2011. Today, the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 have withdrawn a writ petition filed by them with a view to avail the alternate remedy of challenging the judgment of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, dated 15.06.2011 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the acceptance of the tender of the respondent nos.8 and 9, the petitioner could have challenged the same, if possible and permissible in law, before the appropriate forum, but, surely could not have challenged the judgment dated 15.06.2011 by this petition. Since by the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2011, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4, the petitioner cannot effectively challenge the same before this Court in the instant petition by raising a ground of absence of an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. A party cannot challenge a judgment in the proceedings instituted by the other party, when the proceedings are dismissed, in his favour. 5 In the aforesaid set of facts, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE