1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1182/2008. Jogendra Singh. VERSUS Union Bank of India and Others. 07.07.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.S.M.Mehta, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.R.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Mehta ] Mr.R.K.Salecha ] for the respondents. ***** The matter comes up on the application filed by the respondent bearing No.19873 dated 29.05.2008 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated 08.02.2008. The grievance of the petitioner before this court is that the petitioner allegedly was a tenant in the premises since 1986. The said premises was owned by the debtor against whom a decree under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1993”) was passed. In execution of the said decree, the property in question belonging to the debtor, in which the petitioner claims to be a tenant was put to auction and purchased by the respondent-applicant and the learned Recovery Officer passed the order dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure-7) dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that 2 the learned Recovery Officer of the D.R.T., Jaipur has without having framed any issue regarding the factum of tenancy of the petitioner or affording any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and recording any evidence on the aforesaid issue has proceeded to decide the matter. It is submitted that since the question involved is question of fact and issue ought to have been framed and the evidence ought to have been recorded before the learned Recovery Officer with regard to the issue whether the petitioner was a tenant of the debtor since 1986 and further whether possession be handed over to the purchaser physically or symbolically. Learned counsel for the applicant purchaser submits that the applicant-purchaser has spent a huge amount of money for the purchase of the property in question and on account of the interim orders passed by this court, the delivery of possession has been stayed and the respondents have not receive the fruits of the purchase of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the objection of the petitioner is only with regard to the determination of the issue and affording the opportunity to lead evidence by the petitioner then the matter may be remanded to the learned Recovery Officer directing him to frame an issue and record evidence on the said issue after affording opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties by way of filing affidavit in support of their case and if necessary to cross examine the deponent on the said affidavits and 3 allowing the parties to file necessary documents in support of their case. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that a time bound program may be given so that the matter is not delayed any further. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, in view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned orders are set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is directed that the learned Recovery Officer would frame necessary issues and direct the parties to submit their affidavits and documents in support of the same and if necessary allow the parties to cross examine the deponents with regard to the statement made in the affidavits and decide the matter expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Recovery Officer on 22.07.2008. No fresh notices need be issued. Consequently, the writ petition as well as the application No.19873 stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.