UKHC010135082026 2026:UHC:6708 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2320/2026 Pooran Singh --Petitioner Versus Canara Bank & Others --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey and Mr. J.C. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1. (2) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 24.06.2026 (Annexure No. 6, Page No. 30 to 34) issued by Respondent No. 1 (Bank) in respect of the Petitioner's mortgaged property i.e., Land & Building measuring 0.094 Hectare, Old Khasra No. 210/1 min & New Khasra No. 210 Min. situated at Village Haripur Kunwar Singh, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. 2. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 Bank not to issue any Sale Certificate, execute any Sale Deed, or create third-party rights in favor of Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the auction dated 14.07.2026. 3. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 (DRT Dehradun) to decide S.A. No. 09 of 2026 on merits within a time-bound period.” (3) In sum and substance, case of the petitioner is that despite interim order dated 12.3.2026, passed by Debts UKHC010135082026 2026:UHC:6708 Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun in SA No. 09 of 2026, respondent bank has auctioned the secured asset and sale is going to be confirmed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has complied with the conditions mentioned in the interim order dated 12.3.2026 and he has deposited rupees ten lakhs with the bank on two different dates. (4) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent bank, however, submits that he has no instructions as to whether petitioner has actually deposited rupees ten lakhs and as per the documents enclosed with the writ petition, deposit, if any, made by the petitioner was after 30 days, whereas Debts Recovery Tribunal had directed to make the deposit within 30 days. He further submits that in view of default made by petitioner, bank proceeded to sell the secured asset in a public auction and the public auction was successful and now third party interest has been created. (5) Since SA filed by the petitioner is pending before DRT, therefore, any interference by this Court at this stage would not be warranted. Writ petition, however, is disposed of by providing that petitioner will move appropriate application before DRT for protecting his interest, within two weeks. For a period of two weeks, sale deed shall not be executed in favour of auction purchaser. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 31.7.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.31 19:39:19 +05'30' UKHC010135082026 2026:UHC:6708