JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Certain orders have come to be passed by the Recovery Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The order passed is in R.P. No. 44 of 2001. The order dated 21.6.2006 contained in Annexure-20 and the subsequent orders thereafter are the bone of contentions in the present writ application. 3. There is long history behind the present litigation but this Court is concerned with the case of the petitioner who claims himself to be the legal entity and a so-called company duly registered under the Companies Act. They have had to approach the High Court in the present writ application because the Debt Recovery Tribunal refused to respond suitably and favourably to the objections against the order of attachment of property which belongs to the present petitioner. The present petitioner claims to be the original owner having purchased the property from respondent no. 2 for consideration. For certain outstanding loan and dues standing against respondent no. 2, the property of the present petitioner has been attached as well by Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. While many a. submissions have been made at the bar in an effort to assail the impugned order dated 21.6.2006 the Court must fairly record that the Recovery Officer has faithfully taken note of all the objections both factual and legal which has been raised before him and has faithfully answered all those questions. The submission which has been made now before this High Court is basically a repeated argument on those objections. 5. One thing which has emerged from the given set of facts as well as from reading the impugned order is that the petitioner is a purchaser of the property while a Money Suit No. 9 of 1988 was pending against the borrower. It was during the pendency of the said money suit the property in question came to be alienated. That is one of the reasons why the Recovery Officer has categorically recorded in sub-para-(iii) of para-3 of the said order that the alleged purchase by the alleged objector-Bihar Distillery Ltd. is after filing of the said Money Suit No. 9 of 1988 and this alleged purchase is of the Bihar Distillery Unit of Industrial Corporation Private Limited. In this background the said purchase is hit by Doctrine of lis pendens and barred under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. In this background the said purchase is hit by Doctrine of lis pendens and barred under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. If this is the finding which has been recorded based on material then it cannot be said that the petitioner has absolutely no relation with the borrower and the claim which the Bank has against him and for which the various properties have been attached. The other objections also have been ably met and no legal infirmity emerges from such findings recorded therein. 7. Another aspect which the Court must record is that the impugned order is dated 21.6.2006 and it was at the behest of the petitioner the said order came to be passed. Why the petitioner chose to remain silent for more than three years is not explained. That is yet another circumstance why the Court is not inclined to entertain this writ application and pass any order in addition to what has already been recorded in the earlier part of the order. 8. In the above stated circumstances no case for exercise of authority under extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court has been made out. Dismissal of the writ application however does not mean that the petitioner is left remediless because the mechanisms are already in place under Debt Recovery Act itself. 9. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal vice. The writ application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.