1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5890 OF 2008 Sunil Dayakisanji Bajaj .. petitioners Versus Union of India and others. .. Respondent. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 26th August, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the action taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on 24th September, 2008, taking 2 possession of the property situated at C.T.S.No.194, mentioned in Exhibit C, annexed at page No. 58, of the paper book 2] It is the contention of the petitioner that the action which is taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, is dehors the provisions of the said Act. It is submitted that forcible possession has been taken with an aid of the police officers, without there being an order to that effect by the Collector. 3] The position is seriously disputed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is stated on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that since the respondent No.5 did not comply with the notice issued to him under the Securitization Act, action was required to be taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit that the respondent No.5 herein has, after the action was taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has forcibly broken the seals which were put by the bank and accordingly, a complaint to that effect is filed with the Rahuri police station. 4] Undoubtedly, in view of the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to take action, as taken by them. The question is, whether the action is taken with the aid of the police or not. The said question is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, under Article 3 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition. The same is therefore rejected. 5] The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has brought to our notice certain averments in the affidavit in rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, which reads thus :- “The stand is taken to deny handing over the articles and belongings of the petitioner, as on the first day of the passing of the order, this Honourable Court has orally asked Advocate Deshmukh, who represnted Mr. Karpe, to make a statement as regard to return of the goods lying in the premises of the petitioner“ 6] We must express that the averments are totally unwarranted. It is a settled law that the court speaks through its orders. It is not appropriate for any party to aver regarding what orally transpired between the Judges and the lawyers on a particular day. It is also equally expected of a lawyer who has subscribed his signature to an affidavit in reply to be diligent and cautions to see to it that such averments are not mentioned in the affidavit. We, therefore, while deprecating such a practice, expunge the aforesaid part from the affidavit in rejoinder, filed by the petitioner. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 4