THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.33653 OF 2010 19-01-2011 Between: S.Bhadraiah ……….Petitioner And Canara Bank,rep. by its Authorised Officer, Hyderabad and another. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.33653 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the docket order dated 23-12-2010, in I.A.No.1058 of 2010 in S.A.No.251 of 2010, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner herein, praying to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned possession notice dated 24-11-2010 issued by the respondent-bank. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the principal borrower of the loan obtained from the respondent-bank and he created equitable mortgage over the schedule property in favour of the respondent- bank. However, he committed default in repayment of the same, hence, the respondent-bank issued impugned notice, dated 24-11-2010 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for brevity ‘SARFAESI Act’). Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed the appeal in S.A.No.251 of 2010 on the file of the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1058 of 2010 on the file of the Tribunal praying to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned possession notice. The Tribunal dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner without showing any inclination to repay the amount, filed the present application at the initial stage of the action initiated by the respondent-bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-bank and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner borrowed loan and created equitable mortgage over the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner failed to repay the same. Then, the respondent- bank by following the due procedure, issued possession notice demanding a sum of Rs.1,45,93,109/- as due to the respondent-bank. Further, as held by the Tribunal, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of stay. Hence, we do not see any irregularity or illegality in the notice issued by the respondent-bank and therefore, the action initiated by the respondent- bank is sustainable under law. The writ petition devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the main appeal itself is pending consideration, a direction may be issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the same as early as possible, we, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to dispose of the main appeal in S.A.No.251 of 2010, on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 19-01-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr