ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

"A. Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the four storied commercial and residential building measuring about 9977.15 morefully described in the schedule below, until the disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before Hon'ble DRT in S.A.No.13/2024 produced at ANNEXURE-D, in the interest of justice and equity.

B. Pass such other order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri. I. Taranath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.

Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

3. The very petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.20885/2022 and connected cases. This Court in terms of its order dated 21.11.2023, directed the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('the DRT' for short) by the following order:

"The petitioner calls in question an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (the 'SARFEASI Act' for short) dated 30.08.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.333/2022.

2. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel representing the Bank seeks to contend that pursuant to the order under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, the property has already been sold on 14.06.2023 and the sale certificate is issued in favour of the auction purchaser on 12.09.2023. The subject petition was filed on 18.10.2022, though it was pending no effort has been made by the borrower to either clear the dues or get the mortgage redeem, prior to the issuance of sale notice.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the teeth of the present dismissal, the Bank would take immediate steps to get the movables moved from the out of the house, which is the subject matter of the proceedings. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant a week's time to the petitioner to either move the movables from the house or to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as the case would be.

4. In the light of the sale notice now issued, the remedy that would lie to the petitioner is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the actions of the Bank.

Reserving such liberty the petition stands disposed."

4. The petitioners then approached the DRT before whom the Bank appears to have sought time to file statement of objections and in the time that is granted by the DRT have registered the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser had begun demolition of the property. It is then the petitioner again knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. This Court in order to preserve status-quo, had granted the following order on 04.03.2024, which reads as follows:

"Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, appearing for the petitioner.

This Court, in W.P.No.20885/2022 permitted the petitioner either to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal or to take the movables from the property in question.

Learned Senior counsel would submit that before the DRT the respondent - Bank has continuously sought time for filing of objections and the matter is now directed to be listed on 21.03.2024 for filing objections to the main, as well as to the interlocutory application.

In the interregnum, the learned Senior counsel submits that taking advantage of the time gap, the sale certificate is registered in favour of the auction purchaser and the auction purchaser has began demolition of the property.

Therefore, there shall be an interim order of stay, as prayed for, till the next date of hearing.

List this matter on 06.03.2024.

Hand delivery of the order is permitted."

6. Learned counsel, Sri. Francis Xavier representing the Bank would submit that the Bank would file it