1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2010 (Sou. Neesha Bhojraj Kalamkar vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2010. Heard Mrs. Kalamkar, learned petitioner in person, Shri Lahiri, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 and Shri Marathe, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. It appears that the challenge to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) (Recovery Officer) was raised before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4706 of 2008. The said writ petition was not entertained and as per orders dated 24.10.2008, the petitioner there was advised to take appropriate measures and status quo prevailing on that date was continued. A consequential order passed by the Recovery Officer on 18.09.2009 is now questioned in present writ petition. The petitioner claims that she is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. She purchased suit flat from one Haji Hassan s/o Abdul Karim Nagani through his power of attorney Shri Raman Radheshyam Siroya. The petitioner was not aware of any attachment by Central Bank of India or sale by said Siroya in favour 2 of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has submitted that for loan recovery, the flat was attached and Respondent No. 2 has cleared the entire loan. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 – Recovery Officer has restored the possession of Respondent No.2. Shri Lahiri, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 3 state that as Respondent No. 1 has recovered the entire loan arrears, possession has been restored back to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 claims that he has purchased suit flat prior to the petitioner from the very same person. Thus, there is dispute between the parties in relation to suit flat and as also about the title to it. It is apparent that the challenge to order of Recovery Officer (Respondent No. 3) in such circumstances in present writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. In such situation, the petitioner has to file appropriate proceedings before the Competent Court for redressal of her grievance. The petitioner is given time of two weeks to take such appropriate steps. Till then, the parties to maintain status quo as of today. With these observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.