UIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. HQN'BLE SHR! V.K. SHRSVASTAVA, J. pONns Writ Petitjon (0 No. 6179 OF 200S Smt. K.S. Thakur W/o Shri P.S. Thakur, aged about 44 years, R/o Raipur, Tehsi! & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Versus itate Bank of India, Phaphadih Branch, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Authorized OfHcer cum Manager Present: Shri Abhijit C Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. 10-11-2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by ayaK.cj. This writ petition is directed against the refusa! of the Debts Recovery Tribuna! (for short "the DRT"), Jabalpur to grant ad-interim injunction sought by the petitioner herein in an application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financia! Assets and Enforcemsnt of Securifr/ 'nterest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). The fo!!owing is the reason stated by the DRT ts refuse ad-interlm injunctlon: "Having heard the Ld. CounseS for applicant and after going through the records it appears that bank has taken possession u/s 1 3(4) of Securitisation Act in the month of August 2005. As per Section 17 of iecuritisation Act, applicatlon is to be filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken u/s 13(4) of Securitisatson Act. On drawlng attention the point of imitation Shri Thakur h-as submitted that delay may be condoned. Applicant has noS filed any application for -.2.— condonation of detay. Not only thls applicant has fi!ed instant application on 9-10-06 and the application for urgent hearinfl is fiied on 10-10-2006, whereas auction is scheduted for tomorrow i.e. 12-10-2006. !t means the appiicant any hov/ wants ex parte order in their !t wi!! not be out of piace to mention here that aiieged agreement of construction of house is between the appiicant and the Builder and the Bank is not the party to the said agreemenf. More so amount cannot be disbursed to the builder without the consent/authority of the applicant, therefore, contention of appiicant that bank has disbursed amount in connivance with the builder cannot be prima facle iccepted. !n the facts and circumstances ofthe case, 1 do not find strong prima facie case to grant exparte ad interim re!ief, therefore, prayer i's rejected". Furthermore, we are to!d that as proposed the auction was conducted on 12-10-2006. The discretion exercised by the DRT could not bc condemned as arbitrar^' or unreasonable. !n the fads and circumsfances of the case, no case is made out to interfere wlth the discretion exercised by the DRT. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it js accordingiy dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge s^