B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rao, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Panpalia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, for sometime.

2. The question is, whether the impugned order dated 13-2-2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Washim, in Case No. 3 of 2014 is in accordance with the Scheme of section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act).

3. We have perused that order. Respondent No. 1 District Magistrate has found that secured creditor did not produce before it document creating security interest in its favour. Thereafter, on account of confusion about identity of property, he has attempted to obtain report of the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has mentioned that Plot No. 62 is not in existence. However, Respondent No. 1 has taken note of the fact that copy of sale deed is made available by the secured creditor on record.

4. Shri Purohit, learned counsel, has relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Trade Well and anr. vs. Indian Bank and anr., reported at 2007 AllMR(C