(Order of the Court was made by Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR)

Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order, made in I.A.No.321 of 2016 in S.A.No.54 of 2016, dated 11.02.2016, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, by which, the Tribunal has granted stay of confirmation of the sale fixed on 12.02.2016, subject to the condition that the writ petitioner has to make payment of Rs.20,00,000/-to the 2nd respondent/Bank, directly on or before 11.03.2016, as first installment and another payment of Rs.20,00,000/-as the second installment on or before 11.04.2016.

2. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, has also made it clear that in the event of failure to make single payment, ad-interim order granted on 11.02.2016 would stand vacated automatically and that the bank is at liberty to proceed further with the secured assets. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, has directed its Registry to post the case on 12.04.2016.

3. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Neel Madhav Mining P. Ltd., vs. Union Bank of India, reported in III (2006) BC 311 (DB), and contending inter alia that the secured asset is an agricultural property, Mr.M.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, ought not to have passed a conditional interim order.

4. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there were no bidders on 12.02.2016, auction was not held. Submission is placed on record.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the secured asset is an agricultural property, in which, the petitioner is running a Poultry Farm, and therefore, it is exempted under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act., before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it was the reply of the Bank that the secured asset is not an agricultural property and that the revenue records reflected that it was a barren land meant for construction of houses and that a pucca shed has been put up in the secured asset.

6. The issue as to whether the secured property is an agricultural property or not, is a question of fact and Writ Court could not delve into the said aspect and record a finding, solely on the basis of averments. Reference can be made to few decisions:-

(a) In the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 317 (Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr.) it is held that the disputed questions of fact could not be entertained in the writ proceedings. At paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"19. The question as to whether the workmen concerned had been continuously working for a period of ten years so as to enable them to derive benefit of the judgment of this Court in R.K. Panda case (1994) 5 SCC 304 was essentially a question of fact...."

In paragraph 22, the Honourable Supreme Court further held as follows:

"22. ...a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1...."

(b) In (2006) 9 SCC 256 (Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.), the Honourable Supreme Court held that 'the statement of the appellant or the 5th respondent was correct or not could not ordinarily be tested in writ proceedings and it is well known that in writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could not be entertained'.

(c) In yet another decision reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 687 (Food Corporation of India v. Harmesh Chand), the Supreme Court held as follows:

"Since the facts were seriously disputed by the appellant and no factual finding could be recorded without consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, it was not an appropriate case in which the High Court ought to have exercised its writ jurisdiction. The parties could have approached a civil court of competent jurisdiction t