HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9592 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are auction purchasers who were parties before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 and an application for their impleadment has been moved before the DRT which is still pending. 3. In these circumstances, the opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 appear to be proforma parties to this writ petition and they are not necessary parties. The writ petition can be decided by hearing submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite party- Bank. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1-Bank has orally opposed the writ petition and he stated that in view of the order proposed to be passed, he do not wish to file a counter affidavit. 5. The petitioner has filed S.A. No.586 of 2025 before the DRT, Lucknow challenging the recovery proceedings against him. 6. On 03.09.2025, the DRT has passed the impugned order wherein it is recorded that the petitioner's counsel press an application for stay restraining the bank from putting the property in e-auction and to stay the sale proceedings i.e. execution of sale certificate and sale deed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent bank informed the DRT that a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Khare, Aahuti Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Manish Misra Mr. Manish Gulati .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Alambagh Branch Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) sale certificate has already been issued in one out of four properties which are put in auction. The petitioner was directed to implead the auction purchaser and was given liberty to move further application after appearance of the auction purchase. The DRT stated in the impugned order that the other prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is evident from the impugned order that only one out of four properties has been put to auction and the remaining three properties are yet to be auctioned. Even regarding the the property which has been put to auction, no sale deed has been executed till date and the petitioner is praying for stay of execution of the sale deed. These prayers have not become infructuous. 9. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent- bank has opposed the writ petition and he has stated that the petitioner has failed to discharge his liability of making payment towards bank, he could not dispute the fact that the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner before the DRT, has not become infructuous and he could not justify the rejection of an application for interim relief by the DRT as having become infructuous. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank states that no useful purpose be served in keeping this writ petition pending and it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be remanded with the direction for being decided afresh in accordance with law. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the matter is fixed before the DRT on 13.10.2025. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of an order dated 16.05.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Matter under Article 227 No.2946 of 2025 titled Vimla Kashyap and 2 Ors. v. Union of India wherein this Court has made the following observations:- "7. A perusal of the order, reveals total non-application of mind and prima-facie gives an impression that there is a lack of training of the Member Tribunal manning the office at DRT. WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 2 8. Finding the order dated 02.05.2025 to be short of any valid decision making process and without any application of mind, the order dated 02.05.2025 is quashed. 9. This court is noticing, similar orders passed by the DRT Lucknow in various matters, as such, let a copy of this order be sent to the Ministry of Finance, to consider imparting training to the officer concerned so that the functioning of the DRT for which it was established can go on smoothly. 10. In the present case, the matter is remanded to the DRT Lucknow to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the case as pleaded by the petitioner and the defense that may be taken by the respondents with all expedition. The fresh order, as directed above, shall be passed preferably within a period of four weeks. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. " 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that his application for interim relief may against not be decided in a proper manner by the Presiding Officer of the DRT. 14. The aforesaid apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner would not justify this Court itself exercising the powers of the DRT and the matter has to be relegated to the DRT for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No.586 of 2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for interim relief as infructuous, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow for deciding the interim relief application afresh preferably on the next date fixed i.e. 13.10.2025 or in any case, without any unnecessary delay. 16. Till the disposal of the interim relief application, the respondent No.1-bank shall not execute sale deed in respect of the property in question. October 8, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 9592 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench