JUDGMENT :

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment in the writ petition rejecting his challenge against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna (for brevity DRT) and relegating him to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The controversy arose insofar as the respondent-Bank proceeding against a property comprised within 1 Katha appertaining to Khata No. 570, Khesra No. 172, Tauji No. 184, Thana No. 12 bounded by Mahavir Gope on north, east Kapildeo Yadav, west boundary Daud Bigha and south part of Plot No. 172. One Satish Kumar is said to have purchased an area of 6.38 decimals bounded by Thana NO. 12, Plot No. 570, part of Khata No. 169/172/158, Tauji No. 814, bounded by north, Mahavir Gope, south Devi Gope, east Sheikh Nasrul Haq, west Daud Bigha through a registered sale deed dated 03.05.1987. While the earlier land referred to was purchased by the petitioners by a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1985, Satish Kumar had created equitable mortgage of the property purchased by him and availed a loan from the respondent-bank; which became NPA and proceedings were taken by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement