THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No : 1234 of 2011 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner herein purchased the property bearing flat No.2, 4th floor, admeasuring 1840 square feet along with the undivided share of 60 square yards or 50.167 square meters out of the total extent of 600 square yards or 501.678 square meters, bearing municipal House No. 7-5-106/54, comprising with apartment building by name “Bay Castle” in plot No. 43, T.S.No. 1008 of Waltair, Ward No. 21, Visakhapatnam from Respondents 2 and 3. While so, he came to know that the 1st respondent bank filed O.A.No. 1 of 2010 against Respondents 2 and 3 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam and the 1st respondent bank filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, seeking possession of the property, wherein an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for his impleadment in O.A.No. 1 of 2010 and also filed S.A.No. 186 of 2010 under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Pending the above proceedings, the 1st respondent bank is making all its efforts to take possession of the flat. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent bank approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the criminal Court which is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Hence, he filed this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the O.A. is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and on the application filed by the respondent bank before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam seeking possession of the flat in question, the said Court has appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to take its possession and the writ petitioner herein has preferred to implead himself in the said O.A. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed S.A.No. 186 of 2010. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the writ petitioner and the 1st respondent. As already the writ petitioner has approached the Tribunal seeking to implead himself in the O.A filed by the 1st respondent, it is for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to adjudicate the same and pass orders considered appropriate thereon. In the matter of this nature, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------- (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 28th January 2011 ksld