Judgment S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. According to the petitioners, the auction-sold properties, though belong to others, but after the possession of the same, they obstructed the access to petitioners property. It is the further case of the petitioners that no demarcation of the properties, was done, nor it has been determined as to how the petitioners will have access through the properties, which have been auction-sold for the purpose of entering into their own property. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records. 3. In these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, dated 1. 2009. In the said case, the DRT-II, Chennai has noticed that the petitioners are the owners of Plot No.3 out of the four plots in the total land, measuring 0.24 cents. The Recovery Officer has not sold Plot No.3, which belongs to the petitioners, but has sold only Plot Nos.1, 2 and 4 out of 0.24 cents and thereby, the petitioners right has not been affected in any way. 4. So far as the question with regard to the petitioners ingress and egress to Plot No.3 is concerned, from the findings of the DRT-II, Chennai, it appears that in the sale deed, there is a mention about a passage and the auction-purchaser and the petitioners have right to use the passage as common passage for their properties. 5. It further appears from the impugned order of the DRT-II, Chennai, that the petitioners also raised other issue that they were not aware of the proposed sale, otherwise, that they would have purchased the properties. In this regard, we may only mention that the petitioners cannot raise such a dispute at this stage, as it is expected that the properties must have been sold after the auction-notice published in the newspapers. However, if such procedure was not followed, it was always open for the petitioners to challenge the auction-sale under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, read with Second Schedule to Income Tax Act. 6. We find no merits in the Civil Revision Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. However, if such procedure was not followed, it was always open for the petitioners to challenge the auction-sale under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, read with Second Schedule to Income Tax Act. 6. We find no merits in the Civil Revision Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioners to move before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if any person objected the ingress and egress of the petitioners to their own property. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.