CWP No.3313 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3313 of 2009 Date of decision: March 3, 2009. Sudhir Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Presiding, DRT-II, Chandigarh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Shri I.P. Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. Keeping in view the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the above stated respondents. The other respondents are also not required to be served. The petitioners seek quashing of the notice dated 28.1.2009 (Annexure P-15) issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 2002 Act), read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, whereby their residential houses, CWP No.3313 of 2009 -: 2 :- bearing no.58-A and 59-A situated in Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana, being the secured assets, are sought to be auctioned. Suffice it to state here that earlier also, the proceedings under Section 13 of 2002 Act were initiated against the petitioners in the year 2002 and a sale notice dated 10.7.2007 in respect of both the residential houses was issued. The petitioners challenged those proceedings in SA No.83 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, in which vide an interim order dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure P-7), the Tribunal stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned sale notice dated 10.7.2007. The above stated SA was thereafter listed for hearing from time to time but was dismissed in default on 20.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioners then moved Misc. Application No.13 of 2008 for restoration of the SA and the same has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.4.2008. There is, however, no order passed by the Tribunal vacating/modifying the interim stay granted by it on 10.8.2007. The respondent-Bank has issued the impugned sale-notice on the premise that with the dismissal of the SA in default, the interim stay order also stood vacated and while restoring it to its original number, no interim stay has been granted. On the other hand, the petitioners' contention is that once the SA has been restored to its original number, the interim stay also stood revived and became operative and the same has never been vacated. The record reveals that the petitioners have moved one after the other Misc. Applications before the Tribunal seeking clarification as well as for pre-ponement of the date of hearing in the main case. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in CWP No.3313 of 2009 -: 3 :- view the fact that the interim stay granted by the Tribunal against the auction of the residential houses has been operating since the year 2007, I am of the considered view that the interim stay order is liable to continue till the SA is decided by the Tribunal on merits, more so when the parties are also keen for an early disposal of the case on merits. It is ordered accordingly. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that the above mentioned SA has been ordered to be heard along with OA No.753 of 2006. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i)the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh shall endeavour to decide OA No.753 of 2006 and SA No.83 of 2007 as early as possible and preferably before 31.5.2009; (ii) in case it is found that the petitioners are delaying the disposal of the above mentioned cases, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to modify the interim order earlier granted in their favour. Similarly, the respondent-Bank shall also be at liberty to seek vacation/modification of the said interim order; (iii) till then, the interim stay granted by the Tribunal on 10.8.2007 shall continue to operate. Disposed of. Copy dasti on usual charges. March 3, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge