The court emphasized that an order of status quo should not have the effect of a stay, especially when the Tribunal had thought fit not to grant a stay.

This revision is directed against the interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.

2. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. It was an interim order passed by the Tribunal in an application filed, pending proceedings for confirmation of sale of an immovable property made by the respondent Bank. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available and in particular the order under challenge, it would be quite clear that the respondent is neither the borrower nor the guarantor, but a third party. Admittedly, the property belonged to one Mr.D.S.Manian and Mr.Senthilnathan, who had obtained loan from the respondent bank. When the proceedings were pending, there was an agreement for sale of the property between the petitioner before the lower court, the third party and the owners of the property. Apart from that, it was agreed that the appellant was to deposit Rs.18 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the loan taken by the borrowers and the bank has also accepted the same. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-was deposited. When the matter was pending so, the property has been sold by the respondent bank on 21. 2007 in favour of the third parties, who are the revision petitioners before this court. Pending proceedings, the said application was filed that the confirmation of the said sale should be stayed by way of an interim order. When the matter was taken up for consideration to grant the interim stay or otherwise, though the Tribunal was of the opinion that it was not the fit case for granting interim stay ex parte, has passed an order of status quo to be maintained. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners, who are the purchasers of the property in the auction conducted by the bank, have brought forth this revision petition.

3. After looking into the materials available, the irresistible conclusion is that the order of the Tribunal to maintain status quo is wrong and erroneous. The application has been brought forth by the third party, who pending proceedings sought for stay of the confirmation of sale that took place on 21. 2007, in which the property has been purchased by the revision petitioners herein. The Tribunal thought it fit not to grant stay, but to issue notice to the parties and the matter was also posted to 3. 2007. Under these circumstances, the grant of the order of status quo, as done by the Forum, would have the effect of stay. Hence, having applied its mind and thought it fit not to grant stay, no status quo could be ordered, but it has been done, which in the opinion of the court is erroneous. Hence, without any hesitation whatsoever, it has got to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. It is also open to both the parties to raise their respective contentions before the Tribunal. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.