AND WRIT PETITION NO.11155 OF 2025 Mr. V Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (Online).

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. We are of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable.

2. The petitioner No.2 claims to be the purchaser of the schedule property from the auction purchaser and has suffered an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (DRT-II) dated 05.03.2025. By the said order, the S.A. filed by the borrowers (the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition) was allowed, and DRT-II quashed all the measures initiated by the respondent No.3-Canara Bank, pursuant to the Sale Notice dated

09.04.2021 and the auction Sale held on 29.04.2021.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.2, having purchased the schedule property from the auction purchaser, was not made a party to the S.A.

4. Counsel submits that the petitioner No.2 will suffer severe prejudice in the event the order dated 05.03.2025 is not interfered with.

5. The petitioners have not provided any explanation as to why they did not approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal