JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the property which was taken possession by a authorized officer of the petitioner Bank with the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, has been trespassed upon by respondents 4 and 5 (borrowers). It is submitted that though a complaint was filed before the Police, respondents 4 and 5 are continuing in possession of the property in question.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would submit that respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to continue in possession after the Advocate Commissioner took possession of the property by the officials of the Bank themselves. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 intend to challenge the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank would refer to Ext.P2 Commissioner’s report to show that the Advocate Commissioner had actually taken physical possession and had handed over the same to the authorized offic