JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has come up on application u/Art.226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the exparte stay order passed by this Court on 27.10.09, but with consent of counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard at the order stage itself. 2. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.8.09 whereby the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur on an application submitted by the Bank for changing the venue of holding auction proceedings from Ajmer to Jaipur in regard of the property situated at Ajmer granted permission vide order impugned dated 26.8.09. 3. The main thrust of submissions of the counsel for petitioner is that copy of the application filed by the Bank for change of venue for holding auction proceedings, which was taken note of by the Recovery Officer, was not supplied to the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for changing the venue for holding auction proceedings, particularly when the property is situated at Ajmer. It will be relevant to observe that earlier also the recovery officer passed order dated 09/04/2008 to hold a public auction at Ajmer on 02/06/2008 but for good reasons it failed and Bank had a bonafide apprehension that it will not be materialised at Ajmer and in such circumstances, submitted application (Ann.7) and prayed that venue for holding auction proceedings may be shifted from Ajmer to Jaipur, which was granted by Recovery Officer vide order dated 26.8.09. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the change of venue for holding auction proceedings which has taken place is causing great prejudice to the petitioner and he has not been able to get a prospective buyer who can purchase the property in auction proceedings initiated by the Bank on account of change of venue for holding auction proceedings. 5. It will be sufficient to note that the instant petition was filed in October,09 and interim order was passed by the Court on 27.10.09 and almost after a year of passing of the interim order the petitioner is unable to get the buyer who can fetch the better price to the property expected by him and apart from it mere change of venue for holding auction proceedings from Ajmer to Jaipur in no manner can cause prejudice to the petitioner. That apart, if at all he was aggrieved by the decision taken by the Recovery Officer objections could have been raised before him or may avail remedy of appeal available to him under section 30 of the Act,1993 against the order of Recovery Officer. Taking note thereof, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 6. Counsel for petitioner at the last submits that because of the pendency of the writ petition the limitation provided under the statute in availing remedy of appeal has also expired and in such circumstances even if appeal is preferred by the petitioner there is possibility that he may not get benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act while his appeal being entertained by the appellate authority. 7. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 27.10.09 also stands vacated. However, if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, it is expected from the appellate authority to consider the period during which the writ petition remained pending in this Court taking note of section 14 of the Limitation Act while examining the delay caused in approaching the appellate authority. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******