C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 11.09.26 D/L Sl-03 Ct. 07 (Samar) W.P.A. 1 WPA 18196 of 2026 < Mrs. Sangita Ray -Vs- Central Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Ankan Das, Mr. Subir Kumar Dutta, Ms. Payel Das …for the petitioner. Ms. Sruti Datta, ….for the State. Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, Mr. Surath Chakraborty, ….for the Central Bank of India. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, AGP, ….for the respondent no. 7. 1. Ms. Sruti Datta, learned advocate appears for the State respondents and files a report forwarded to her by the Officer-in-charge, Malipanchghora Police Station indicating that in terms of the order dated September 01, 2026 notice has been served upon the Bank. 2. The Bank is represented. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the Bank in not handing over possession of the property purchased by the petitioner in auction under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. The petitioner complains that since the Bank has been unable to hand over possession of the property purchased by the petitioner for long, the petitioner 2 should be refunded the entirety of the price paid by the petitioner for purchasing the said property in action together with interest. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 7 and 8 i.e. the legal heirs of the borrower, submits that the borrower had already filed an application under Section 17 of the 2002 Act assailing the action of the Bank under the 2002 Act and in the said application, an order of stay was passed. It is submitted that the sale is bad since the same has been conducted during subsistence of the stay order. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the Bank refute such contention submits that the sale is valid. It is further submitted that the petitioner i.e. the auction purchaser has already been added as a party to the SARFAESI application and the sale is subject to the decision taken by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. Since all the parties are before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the SARFAESI application that has been filed, has been pending since 2014, it would be fit and proper to request the Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear out the said application expeditiously and preferably on the next date fixed granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Since the matter has been pending since 2014, the Debts Recovery Tribunal should 3 endeavour to conclude the hearing and deliver the judgment as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of November 2026. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the cases of the respective parties and all points are left open to be urged before and decided by the Tribunal. The issue as regards refund of the price paid to the petitioner, along with interest would also be decided by the Tribunal. 9. Since no affidavit has been called for, all allegations made against the respondents shall be deemed not to have been admitted. 10. WPA 18196 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)