Judgment :- N.V. Ramana, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Recovery Officer in issuing Form 13 passed in R.P.No.232 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 dated 11.7.2011 proposing to conduct public auction on 24.8.2011 in respect of plot No.65 admeasuring 288 sq. yards, part of Sy.No.4 situated at Gokale Nagar, Ramanthapur village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, pending the application in I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A. No.1100 of 1999 filed for setting aside the ex parte order, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the 1st petitioner-firm availed loan facility from the 3rd respondent-Bank by hypothecating plant and machinery and movables and also by mortgaging immovable properties with the Bank. As the petitioners failed to repay the loan amount, the 3rd respondent-Bank filed O.A.No.1100 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, in which, the petitioners were set ex parte and hence, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioners and others to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,04,857-52 ps., with costs and interest. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.895 of 2005 for setting aside the ex parte orders and the same was dismissed for default and thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1477 of 2009 to set aside the default order along with an application to condone the delay. As the notices were not served on some of the respondents, the Tribunal ordered notice by way of substitute service and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately, it was posted to 2.9.2011. But however, the matter could not be taken up, as there was no Presiding Officer to the Tribunal. Thus, the said application is kept pending. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed an application before the Bank for settling the matter under one time settlement scheme, but the Bank declined to accept the same and the 2nd respondent has brought the property to sale. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent-Bank filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations in the affidavit. 4. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that pending the application viz., I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 before the Tribunal, the respondents proposed to conduct public auction for sale of the mortgaged properties. 6. 4. Heard both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that pending the application viz., I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 before the Tribunal, the respondents proposed to conduct public auction for sale of the mortgaged properties. 6. It is pertinent to note that on 24.8.2011 while ordering notice before admission and posting the matter to 13.9.2011, this Court passed the following order: “Meanwhile, the auction of the Schedule A mortgaged property mentioned at Sl.No.2 i.e., residential plot bearing No.65 admeasuring 288 sq. yards, forming part of Sy.No.4, situated at Gokalenagar, Ramanthapur village, under Grampanchayat Ramanthapur, Hayathnagar Taluk, Rangareddy District, may go on, however, the auction proceedings shall not be finalized till further orders.” 7. In view of the above pendency of the application filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal and in view of the subsistence of the interim orders of this Court dated 24.8.2011, without going into the merits of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Tribunal to dispose of I.A.No.1477 of 2009 and other applications, if any pending, expeditiously. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Tribunal to dispose of I.A.No.1477 of 2009 in I.A.No.895 of 2005 in O.A.No.1100 of 1999 and also the applications, if any pending before it, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the interim order dated 24.8.2011 shall continue. No order as to costs.