Judgment :- P. JYOTHIMANI ,J 1. The writ petitioner claiming himself to be an agreement holder in respect of the property concerned from the second respondent, who is admittedly the owner of the property and who by entering into a mortgage with the first respondent/bank, has borrowed amount from the bank. It is for recovery of the said amount due from the second respondent/mortgagor the bank has issued admittedly a notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) followed by possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act. Since possession could not be taken, the first respondent/bank has approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore by filing an application under section 14 of the Act for the purpose of taking possession of the property. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after going through the record, has passed the impugned order appointing an Advocate Commissioner with a direction to take possession of the property and hand it over to the Bank. 3. In the mean time, based on the agreement stated to have been entered between the petitioner and the second respondent for the purchase of the said property, the petitioner has approached the civil court by filing a suit for specific performance. Admittedly, the said suit has been dismissed by the civil court on 24.1.2012. 4. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that while it is true that at the time of guarantee executed by the second respondent while borrowing the amount, the was no agreement which was entered only in January 2009, but at that time when bank has invoked its power under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, they were aware of the said agreement based on which a suit for specific performance was made and in fact, the bank was made as one of the party in the suit and they cannot dispute the knowledge of the existence of the agreement and therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the conduct of the bank is fraudulent in nature. 5. 5. On the other hand, Mr.M.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, who has taken notice, would submit that unless suit filed by the second respondent has been dismissed by the competent civil court, as on today, the petitioner has no right over the property at all and therefore, the writ petition in effect has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the second respondent also submits that the second respondent is prepared to pay the amount to the first respondent/Bank. 6. On the above said facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner as on date has no right or interest over the property, since the suit filed by him has been dismissed. It is only if he succeeds on any appeal, which he may file against the said judgment and decree, he can have any interest over the property. Till then, he is to be treated as a stranger and he cannot be treated as an aggrieved party against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 14 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent/Bank would fairly submit that the petitioner is in possession on the ground floor and if he is having his personal belongings, the first respondent/Bank will permit the petitioner to remove the same. The said submission is recorded and it is expected that the first respondent shall permit the petitioner to remove his personal belongings. 8. It is needless to state that if pursuant to section 14 of the Act, the Bank take possession and bring the property for sale, it is always open to the petitioner to participate in the said auction or by any of the measures provided under the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed as nothing survives as on date. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.