IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23833 of 2009 Between: K.Srinivasa Rao and two others. … Petitioners And State Bank of India, represented by its manager and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.23833 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Questioning the auction notice issued by the authorised officer to recover the debt due to the respondent-Bank by the father of the petitioners-2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed contending that the petitioners’ father mortgaged the joint family property in which the petitioners will have a share and hence they filed O.S.No.36 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court, Nandyal for partition and separate possession in which they obtained interim injunction against 2nd respondent not to alienate the suit schedule property. In view of the same, the auction cannot be proceeded by the authorised officer, until the rights of the petitioners are decided in the civil suit. This Court in ICIC Bank Limited, Bangalore v. V.T.Prakash (2003(3) ALD 369) already held that when the petitioners-3rd parties to the proceedings, 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 or sale of any property in execution of the certificate. On dismissal of the claim petition by the authorised officer to issue the sale certificate, he can prefer an appeal as provided under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”), not withstanding the provisions of Section 29 of the Act. If they are aggrieved by the rejection of the claim may also institute a suit as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 11 of Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961, which is made applicable to all such sales and shall be their right in the suit schedule property. In view of the effective alternate remedy available to the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner can file their objections before the authorised officer for attaching the property and conducting of the sale and can avail the remedies available to him as mentioned supra. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) ___________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 05.11.2009. Lmv