1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2138 of 2019 Sardar Jasbir Singh ….. Petitioner Versus 1. UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, Main Road Branch, Ranchi 2. Sunil Kumar Tiwary 3. Md. Mabassir Ahmad Ansari 4. Zunaid Ahmed Ansari 5. Modassir Ahmed Ansari 6. Bijay Kumar 7. Khalid Ahmad Ansari 8. Mohan Pandey 9. Baidya Nath Singh 10. Santosh Kumar Verma 11. Manish Kumar 12. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi ….. Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 1789 of 2019 Sunil Kumar Tiwary ….. Petitioner Versus 1. UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, Main Road Branch, Ranchi 2. Sardar Jasbir Singh 3. Smt. Prakash Kaur 4. Md. Mobassir Ahmad Ansari 5. Zunaid Ahmed Ansari 6. Modassir Ahmed Ansari 7. Bijay Kumar 8. Khalid Ahmad Ansari 9. Mohan Pandey 10. Baidya Nath Singh 11. Santosh Kumar Verma 12. Manish Kumar 13. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Krishna [In W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] Mr. Indrajit Sinha [In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019] For Respondent No.7: Mr. A. K. Das [In W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] For the Bank: Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad ----- 06/06.01.2025 The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2019 [Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] passed by the Debts 2 Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal (T) No. 113/2013 whereby the appeal preferred by Sunil Kumar Tiwary [the respondent No.2 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] against the entire process of auction purchase has been rejected on the ground that the mutation of the property in question has been illegally done in favour of the auction purchasers. 2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, submits that a supplementary affidavit dated 05.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said case bringing on record a copy of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013 whereby ex-parte preliminary decree dated 06.06.2000 and final decree dated 12.01.2004 with all consequential benefits have been set aside. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-S/1 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is thus submitted that further cause of action pursuant to passing of the aforesaid ex-parte preliminary and final decree no more survives. 3. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, though does not dispute the existence of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013, however, submits that the respondent No.7 was not a party in the said case. Moreover, at present the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question pursuant to the auction sale. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both the cases jointly submit that if at all the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question, the said possession is unlawful, particularly, in view of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013. 5. Be that as it may. Since after passing of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 in M.A. No. 14/2013, the issue raised in the present writ petitions has become academic in nature, there is no need to further proceed in the present matters. 3 6. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law for redressal of their respective subsisting grievances, if any. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 5673/2019 [In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019] also stands disposed of. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)