APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent-Bank.
(2.) On 20th March, 2017 after hearing the counsel for the parties, the following order was passed : "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the Appeal No. 228 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in which next date is fixed on 2.5.2017, Learned Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has directed attachment of the immovable property described in the warrant of the attachment dated 16.1.2017. Petitioner proposed to liquidate the entire dues remaining out of the total amount of Rs. 1.48,35,830.31 plus interest, cost and charges as may fall due. The balance sum, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 86,31,545/-. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank seeks time to take instruction on this proposal of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the attachment has already been effected in the meantime. Let the matter appear on the next Monday i.e. on 27.3.2017 within first ten cases as an unfixed case, so that the counsel for the respondent-Bank would come out with instruction by way of an affidavit. Till then, status quo as of today in respect of the property be maintained."
(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The judgment passed in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandan reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 has also been relied upon and submitted that such matters when the petitioners have statutory remedy available tinder the Act, this Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction Respondents also state that property stands attached by Recovery Officer. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 18th March, 2017. It is also reiterated that petitioner should raise his plea before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Allahabad.;