Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Tribunal") disposing of petitioner's Appeal No. R120/ 11 directing that the auction conducted by Bank shall be subject to final outcome of securitization application. It appears that Bank proceeded to auction certain property and issued a sale notice/auction notice on 24.04.2011. Whereafter petitioner filed Appeal No. 122 of 2011 under Section 17(1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2002") seeking following reliefs: Relief sought : In view of the fact and the law involve in the case Hon'ble tribunal may be pleased set aside/quase the auction/sale notice dated 24.4.11 as shown in serial no. 12 House no. 149/296A Part of Old no. 149 Bia Ka Bagh Allahabad of the New Papers Dainik Jagran in which sale would be finalized on 27.5.11 by the authorised officer State Bank of India Sarb Allahabad. And pass any other or further order which may be deem fit and proper in favour of appellant. Otherwise he will suffer loss and injury.
(3.) IN the aforesaid appeal petitioner has impleaded Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Allahabad and one Manish Kumar Srivastava son of Jamuna Prasad Srivastava as respondents. Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava said to have obtained a sale deed dated 30.04.1962 fraudulently which was allegedly executed in favour of petitioner's father. The property was sold on 27.05.2011 for a sum of Rs. 35,51,000/and confirmed on 11.06.2011 in favour of one Sri Neeraj Kumar son of Sri Raj Kishore Jaiswal, resident of 161/17 Katghar, Allahabad. The aforesaid auction purchaser was not impleaded in the pending appeal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") rejected prayer for interim relief vide order dated 26.08.2011 observing that petitioner has failed to show a prima facie case in his favour and has also not impleaded the auction purchaser in whose absence a relief of dispossession from property in dispute cannot be granted.;