JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner states that the entire proceeding initiated by the Debt Recovery Officer is bad on account of non-observance of Section 28(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 as well as Rule 55 of Income Tax Rules mentioned in Schedule-II. 3. Learned counsel submits that it would appear from the order dated 26.12.2006 of the Recovery Officer that the property in question was valued at Rs. 15,77,000/-. He submits that it would appear from the auction notice that the property in question was valued at Rs. 25,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid property was sold on 17.12.2008 for a value of Rs. 2,04,994/- only. He, thus, states that apart from other points the property worth about Rs. 16/- lacs has been sold away for Rs. 2,04,994/- only, which itself is a matter to ponder. 4. Learned counsel for the bank submits that the property has been divided into two lots. Only some of the property of second lot has been sold. He submits that the petitioner has sold 13 kathas of land for a sum of Rs. 1.38 lac. 5. This Court is not going into the merit of the submissions made by the rival sides. 6. It would be open to the petitioner to take all points taken here, in appeal before D.R.T. In case, appeal is filed with limitation petition, the same would be disposed of sympathetically so far as delay is concerned as the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application before this Court. 7. It is made clear that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for three weeks to enable him to file appeal before the Presiding Officer, DRT. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the bank.