HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 15914 of 2009 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 9th July 2009 in I.A.No. 782 of 2009 in SAIR No. 218 of 2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, he availed loan facility from the 1st respondent bank, on executing a term loan agreement and a guarantee agreement on 27th December 1997. He paid installments till the end of 2001 and subsequently, fell in arrears. He offered the documents of the property purchased by him subsequent to the execution of the term loan agreement to the 1st respondent bank only to prove his bona fides, but not for any securitization. On coming to know that the respondents were trying to sell away the property offered by him, he approached them to take back the documents, but the respondents replied that a suit for recovery of amount vide O.S. No. 31 of 2001 on the file the Senior Civil Judge, R. R. District was filed and the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the 2002 Act’) have also been invoked. Consequently, the respondents have sold the property in the auction conducted on 20th May 2009 and the sale was also confirmed. The petitioner filed SAIR No.218 of 2009 under Section 17 of the 2002 Act, along with an Application I.A.No. 782 of 2009 seeking stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the auction conducted by the respondent bank. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, through its order dated 9.07.2009, directed the respondent bank not to confirm the sale, if the auction has already been conducted, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.2 lacs on or before 30.07.2009. Aggrieved by the said condition imposed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount due and payable by his client is approximately Rs.10 lacs and now the property in question has been sold for Rs.13 lacs i.e. over and above the amount due and the sale is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has moved an application seeking extension of time to comply with the condition imposed by the Tribunal and that application is pending consideration. A perusal of the material available on record shows that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. When once the proceedings are pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot approach this Court seeking an equitable relief, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground, the Writ Petition is misconceived and therefore, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the Tribunal bringing to its notice the subsequent developments, such as conducting the auction of his property, confirmation of sale and execution of the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder, etc, and seeking impleadment of the purchaser in the proceedings pending before it. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th August 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld