JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order sale notice issued by the 2nd respondent under the SARFEASI Act on the ground that insolvency proceedings have been initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and moratorium has been declared on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 and a claim petition has been filed pursuant thereto.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent and in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the 2nd respondent was not aware about the insolvency proceedings initiated as per Exhibit P2 and therefore, the 2nd respondent proceeded under the provisions of the SARFEASI Act. It is further stated that since the 3rd respondent has been appointed as an Insolvency Interim Resolution Professional (for short IRP) by Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent has to file its claim before the IRP, the 3rd respondent. It further stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this court no auction was conducted and Ext.P4 has become redundant.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration nd today, the learned counsel for the 2 respondent submitted rd that they have already preferred a claim before the 3 respondent and leaving ope