THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI DATED: 31-12-2009 WRIT PETITION No. 16249 OF 2009 Between: Korukonda Vinemayee and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Isnar Khazana Towers, 3rd Floor, 2nd Land, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 530 06 and three others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 16249 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri A. Gopal Reddy, J) The petitioners who are claiming to have a share in the property mortgaged by respondent Nos.3 and 4 for availing the loan, filed this writ petition contending that they filed O.S No. 284 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru for partition of the joint family house into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to each of them and that even when the said suit is pending, the property cannot be put to auction for due recovery of the secured debt. This Court in ICICI Bank, Bangalore v. V.T. Prakash[1] held that the third parties who claim rights over the property, which was attached for due recovery of debt by a financial institution, where the Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation, can file their objections to the attachment for sale of any property in execution of the certificate. On rejection of the claim petition by the Recovery Officer, they may prefer an appeal as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 not withstanding the provisions of Section 29. If the third parties are aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, they may also institute a suit as per sub-rule (6) of Rule 11 of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and can establish their rights on the property which is in dispute. Any order passed by the Recovery Officer rejecting the claim will be subject to the result of the said suit, if any and his order will be conclusive only as per the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court, but not otherwise. In view of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to lodge their claim before the Recovery Officer and they can avail the remedies available to them in law. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOUSHAD ALI, J 31-12-2009 ks [1] 2003 (3) ALD 369