B.R. Gnana Murthy S/O Late B.R. Ramalingappa Vs. State Bank of Mysore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[mohan shantanagoudar j.] this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the impugned order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the 3rd addl. chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore city in c.c.no. 1002/2010 vides annexure-f......application was decided against the petitioner herein directing him to pay a sum of 32,3'-909.15 with interest at 12.25% p.a. with monthly rents. questioning the order of the debt recovery tribunal, in 0.a.no.76/2006, petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the debt recovery appellate tribunal, in ma.no.306/2008. the appeal is still pending consideration. during the pendency of the matter, the impugned order is passed.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without notice to him and consequently, the same is illegal.4. it is wholly unnecessary for this court to entertain this writ petition, inasmuch as it is open for the petitioner to approach the debt recovery appellate tribunal, wherein appeal is pending. he may seek any interim order in appeal in accordance with law.in view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The order of III Additional CMM Court permitting the respondent herein to take possession of the schedule property through its Authorized Officer is called in question in this writ petition.

2. The records reveal that the respondent herein filed OA.No.76/2006 for recovery of certain sums of money. The said application was decided against the petitioner herein directing him to pay a sum of 32,3'-909.15 with interest at 12.25% p.a. with monthly rents. Questioning the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in 0.A.No.76/2006, petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, in MA.No.306/2008. The appeal is still pending consideration. During the pendency of the matter, the impugned order is passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without notice to him and consequently, the same is illegal.

4. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to entertain this writ petition, inasmuch as it is open for the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, wherein appeal is pending. He may seek any interim order in appeal in accordance with law.

In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.