SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

1. Questioning the correctness of the order dated 27th April, 2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.

2. The second respondent Bank has preferred an Original Application, being O.A.No.669 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, which, on transfer to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, was renumbered as O.A.No.187 of 2007, seeking direction to the respondents 3 to 6 herein to jointly and severally pay to the bank a sum of Rs.9,73,63,935.26 being the amount due and payable together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum in respect of the loan account raising and falling with the bank advance rate from the date of the application, i.e., 12th October, 2001 till the date of payment in full and to draw recovery certificate for the same, or in the alternative, the Schedule ' B— land mortgaged with the second respondent Bank on second charge basis may be permitted to be sold. The Schedule ' B— land in question reads as under :

SCHEDULE ' B—

All these pieces and parcels of land admeasuring 1.74 acres in Plot No.83, Survey No.255/4A, 4B and 255/3 in Narasingapuram Village, Walajah Taluk, Arakonam Sub-Registration District, Vellore District together with buildings and structures thereon and all plant and machinery attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.'

3. The second respondent Bank, thereafter, made an application, being I.A.No.751 of 2002 (I.A.No.760 of 2002), for interim injunction on 9th September, 2002, seeking to restrain the second defendant therein from dealing with the properties mentioned in the Schedule, whereunder, several other lands were included.

4. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, by order dated 11th September, 2002, directed to maintain status quo in respect of the properties mentioned in I.A.No.751 of 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, by order dated 1st January, 2003, also granted status quo in respect of the properties stated in the schedule to I.A.No.986 of 2002.

5. There against, the writ petitioner herein preferred applications, being I.A.Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2003, to vacate the interim order dated 11th September, 2002 in I.A.No.751 of 2002, directing the second respondent therein, Mr. Peter J.R. Prabhu to maintain status quo in respect of the properties in the schedule to the said petition and to direct the Bank to publish the vacation of the said orders in the local dailies having large circulation in the State of Karnataka and also to vacate the interim order dated 1st January, 2003 made in I.A.No.986 of 2002, directing Mr. Peter J.R. Prabhu to maintain status quo in respect of the properties stated in the schedule to the said petition, on the ground that the assets listed in the schedule to the petition in I.A.No.986 of 2002 are owned and possessed by the petitioner firm. The said Peter J.R. Prabhu was the partner of the petitioner partnership only during the period between May, 1971 and May, 1983. Thereafter, he retired from the partnership under the Partnership Deed dated 1st May, 1983.

6. All the interim applications, being I.A.Nos.27, 28 and 29 of 2003 were taken up together by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai and decided on 15th December, 2009, holding as under :

7.As can be seen from the evidence produced by the 3rd party it is apparent that the properties mentioned in the sub-schedule I of the schedule to the IA No.751(760) & 752(761)/2002 (except the properties mentioned in sub-schedules II & III of the schedule) belong to the 3rd party. Similarly, the properties in the Schedule to the IA 986 & 987/2002 belong to the third party only and there cannot be any status quo order against them. It is submitted by the third party petitioner that Mr.P.J.R.Prabhu was a partner in the petitioner— s firm. This fact is e