ORDER
A.M. Sopre, J.
1. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the notice of sale and sale of property, situated at 503, M.G. Road, opposite Kothari Market, Indore. According to petitioner as can be gathered by mere reading of the writ, the sale of the property is being effected/accomplished on the orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Debt Recovery Act. In substance, the grievance of writ petitioner is that the property belongs to petitioner and hence, it cannot be put to sale by the respondent No. 1 -Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur at the instance of respondent No. 2-Bank, who has obtained the decree against some other person but not against the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. M.M. Asudani, learned Counsel for petitioner.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of
the case, I find no merit in the petition and hence, it deserves dismissal in limine.
4. No Writ Court would step into forestal the judicial action resorted to by any person under some Act for realisation of their dues adjudicated upon by the orders of the Courts/ Tribunal for the reason that it is a legal process put in motion. Now the question whether it is being proceeded with against “A” property or “B” property, is a question which cannot be made subject-matter of writ jurisdiction. To get this question decided, the remedy lies under the Act in which the proceedings are initiated either before the authority concern, itself or by filing an appeal, as the case may be. When I read the provision for filing an appeal under the Act, it is widely worded and is not confined to only those persons who has suffered the order/ judgment from the Tribunal but is also available to a person not party to the original proceedings.
5. Be that as it may, writ Court cannot become a proceedings alike Order 21 of C.P. Code to decide in parallel, whether Recovery Officer exercising its powers for realisation of dues under the act is exercising its powers rightly or wrongly. The remedy of an aggrieved lies only under the Act itself. Even apart from it, the inquiry whether the property which is put to sale, belongs to judgment debtor, or whether it belongs to petitioner as contended by them, or whether judgment debtor with a view to avoid the decree suffered by them has fraudulently transferred the property by effecting nominal/fictitious sale in favour of petitioner are some of the questions that are required to be gone into in any proceedings before a clean chit is given to petitioner of what they are contending. This inquiry needs to be gone into on facts and by tendering evidence. It is possible only in those proceedings which are capable of recording evidence and give finding one way or other, they are usually called execution proceedings, or appellate proceedings, or in appropriate cases/suit, it being a general remedy available to every aggrieved for seeking a declaration. A Writ Court is never regarded as a remedy as such for every cause.
Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.