^ S>!I?.,SIRI asR'is6- •u 9c'Si ^.'oo' "" IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPURfCHHATnSGARH) WRrTPETmON N0.1.0&£:>/2006 PFTmONER : RESPONDENTS ./•' •/.-•' /.^••' / ^ ,^r///' ^&h/ ( Z^P" ^•y <y Heeraman Singh Thakur S/o Late G.S. Thakur Aged about 60 years, R/o ESE Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, C.G. VERSUS /l. The Debt Recovery Tribunal Through The Registrar, Jabalpur, M.P. 2. Union Bank of India Branch at Jawahar Nagar.Raipur City, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) M/s. Mahavir Automations Ltd. 5-Netaji Stadium, Opp. Motibagh Raipur C.G. and administrative office at AR-02 R.D.A. Building, Gurunanak Complex, Sharda Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri Ravindra kumar Jain @ Ravindra Kumar Doshi, S/o Shri N.C. Jain, Managing Director, M/s. Mahavir Automations Ltd., R/o House No. D-303, Sector-5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur 5, Shri Dinesh Jain S/o Shri Deepchand Jain Director (Technical), M/s Mahavir Automations Ltd., R/o Raipur Medical Stores, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 6. Smt. Kusum N. Doshi, W/oShriN.C. Doshi R/o 293/6, Opp. Sant Gyaneshwar School, Shailendra nagar, Raipur 7. Smt Kamla Bai Jain W/o Deep Chand Jain R/o Opp. Raipur Medical Store, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 8. The Amrapali Cooperative Society Ltd. Raipur, Through : The authorizedofficer Rajkumar Naidu, S/o Shri K.S. Naidu, R/o Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) 9. Naveen Kumar Doshi, S/o Shri Dalichand Doshj R/o State Bank Colony, Raipur XI-HC-22 sn^i^T f^-fi* 31'i^r ^{i<^ •yli^T '3^ ';;IT'(i?PT, Blfll'y'16, [cfMI'My ~ 1 ••. • ' . • ^^^0^.^^ *<I< (T g>*tra» 'feB^tT' sn^i?^iTW(Tfl^ Shri S.C. Verma, counsel fl Heard on adinission. This petition is filed Constitution of India agaiust (Aiiiiexyre-P/7) passed in traas^ D.R.T., Jabalpiu- aiid againsj (Aruiexure-P/6) passed in execut Adruittedly, the judgnient judgm&nt and the appeal Ues to Lcanied coiinsel for the has already been ffled by the has not ffled aay appeal. He alsj 22.2.2006, fhe objection raised proceediD.g has not been decide^ for arguinehts on 6.3,2006. The last part of tbe orde.r| his counsel did not appear on 2^ abeyaace and it was directed properties, as scheduled oa| confciaation. of sale wiU be dd iastaiit objectious including obje|( So far as fhe appeltable judgment. I am not 4: passed by the Tribunal. Howeve^- ^raT^flf ^i^dl' '9 f^'^ <f^i^r< ^i SRPgif 3II^?I ^r fhe petitioner. imder Ai-ticle 226/237 of ti.ie |the judgment dated 27.12.2001 fer application No. 268/98. by ttie fhe order dated 22.02.2006 ion matter ofthe aforesaid case. jlated 27.12,2001 is au appealable jhe D.R.A.T., AUafaabad. |etitioner siibinits 'that an appeal (ik. However the presenf petitioner submits that by ffae order dated [by fhe petitioner in fhe execution ft aiid tlie inatter has been oosted woidd show fhat the petitioner or '.2.2006 and objection was kept in fhat the auction/sale of subject 23.2.2006, to continue, but ne only after adjudication of the 'tion ofti'ie petitioner. ted 27.12.2001 is concemed, it is icluied to iaterfere with judgment ,fhe petitioner is fi-ee to approach ~T ± ^ XI-HC-22 an^iqir h-\\* sv^y sti^rai -flj^^ ./a ^si'•^MW-1, «ti\w\e,hwvy. ^-^.N0.,lii3/2^0^ HWWI ^j^jq,-—-—••—-"•—•••—"y'g^ fq^ST' sn^i'^gRg^fOT " '!f^s»' —2-i the appeHate ay^prity. So fa-r ^ couceraed, nofhing has beeii orfl matter has been posted- for bi-p^ rise to aiiy cause of actioa to 226/227 offhe Constiti.ition E|is fhe order dated 22.2.2006 is |ered against the petitiouer. TIie p4rty heaiing which does not give file writ petition uuder Article The petitiou lias no m.eri|ts and the saine is dismissed siimmarily.' Sdl- _._ su^*<"maLsinha judge chNl(yf^1'1 tTFRTf ^ "fe^t <r<l^d.l< ^T atpg'tlSn^r [Tft^ ^Ra^