Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4204 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 80 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harsh Verdhan And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Brajendra Amiy,Prashant Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Sri Padmesh Jain, learned Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. 2. The Vakalatnama and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners are taken on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitization Application No.253 of 2013 be set aside, insofar as, it had held that no interference is required in the auction proceedings. 4. While the matter was being argued, a preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel for the respondent-Bank that against the same relief, the petitioners have approached the DRAT. 5. On the said preliminary objection, the then Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had made a statement, on instructions, that the appeal was filed by the father, who is also the power of attorney holder and as the appeal was wrongly filed, the power of attorney was sought to be withdrawn and it was further stated that the appeal filed in the DRAT shall also be withdrawn. 6. In the context of that submission, this Court has entertained the petition and passed a detailed order on 10.01.2025. In the said order, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners was also recorded that the property of which the possession was taken is different from the property which is sought to be auctioned. Pursuant to the submission, a detailed order was passed on 10.01.2025. 7. Today when the matter was taken up, a fresh Counsel, Sri Padmesh Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that an application has been filed seeking withdrawal of the proceedings before the DRAT. A copy of the application has been shown on mobile phone across the bar, which reveals that the power of attorney holder has filed the withdrawal application on the ground that no bid was received in the auction proposed to be held on 10.01.2025, as such, the appeal was being withdrawn. A copy of the appeal has also been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, which reveals that the reliefs claims were in respect of the same property as claimed before this Court. 8. The Counsel for the respondent-Bank argues that the petitioners tried and succeeded in misleading this Court and the writ petition was filed. He argues that an impression was given that the property proposed to be sold through e-auction is different from the property, of which, the possession was taken. He clarifies that three properties were mortgaged with the Bank to secure the loan. Separate possession notices were issued in respect of the said properties. He argues that the properties proposed to be sold was the House No.KB-45, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, the possession of which was taken separately. He argues that the possession notice in respect of the second property being Flat No.501-A, First Floor, Indira Puram, Ghaziabad (U.P.) was taken separately as was not proposed to be sold, thus, a wrong impression was given which resulted in passing of the order dated 10.01.2025. The possession notice in respect of the property proposed to be auctioned has been handed over across the bar. 9. On the basis of the materials as were brought before this Court today, what transpires is that when the writ petition was filed, clearly an attempt to mislead the Court was made and in fact, the Court was misled in passing the order dated 10.01.2025, even the statement of the petitioners that they would withdraw the appeal before the DRAT as also the power of attorney was also incorrect and was an attempt to mislead the Court, which led to passing of the order. Such conduct by the petitioners cannot be accepted as, the petitioners approaching this Court have to come with clean hand 10. The facts as noticed above clearly demonstrates that the petitioners have mislead the court and had obtained an order on 10.01.2025 which has also resulted in loss to the respondent- Bank, as such, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lac) to be paid by the petitioners, failing which, the same shall be recovered by the arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the said amount shall be transmitted to the respondent-Bank. 11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench