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 (DRAT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002), against the impugned order.

6. We fail to understand how or on what basis the Writ Court can interfere in the proceedings where there is a clear statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

7. We are accordingly of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. However, considering the fact that the petitioners were not made parties to the S.A. filed by the borrowers/the respondent Nos.1 and 2, we deem it fit to restrain the respondent No.3-Canara Bank, or any other interested party, from taking any steps against the schedule property until the petitioners file an appropriate application before the DRT/DRAT. This restraint shall remain in place till 30.04.2025.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the dispute.

9. Since we have disposed of the writ petition without notice, we make it clear that the other parties before us shall be at liberty to seek vacating or modification of this order before the appropriate statutory Forum.

10. W.P.No.11155 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J

Date: 16.04.2025

NDS