Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. The revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.11.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, made in I.A. No.1176 of 2013 in S.A. No.24 of 2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as hereunder :- The revision petitioners, it appears, have borrowed certain amounts from the respondent bank for running their coconut oil extraction industry. The respondent bank issued a statutory notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'SARFAESI Act') on 10.4.12 calling upon the petitioners to discharge in full the liability of Rs.1,37,05,771 as on 31.3.12. The details of the secured assets are enclosed in the notice. Thereafter, on 26.12.12, possession notice in terms of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued, where the amount has been shown as Rs.1,56,67,372/= as on 30.11.12. The said possession notice has been challenged by the petitioners in S.A. No.24/13 under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The said appeal, it appears, was filed in January, 2013 and the appeal is still pending. 3. In the meanwhile, the respondent-bank filed O.A. No.113/13 on 14.6.13 under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act claiming a sum of Rs.1,70,58,674/=. The bank, thereafter, proceeded to publish the auction sale notice dated 24.10.13 fixing the date of auction as 29.11.13 at 11.00 a.m. 4. Since the issue of possession notice is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No.24/13, the petitioners filed I.A. No.1176/13 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the auction sale notice dated 25.10.13 and for stay of all proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. An affidavit dated 5.11.13 is filed in support of this injunction application. That interlocutory application in the Sarfaesi Appeal came up before the in-charge Presiding Officer on 7.11.13 and the following order was passed :- “Proceeding Order dated 07.11.2013 Counsel (Shri G.G.Kannan) for the applicant and counsel (Shri S.Arumugam) for the respondent bank present. Counsel for the applicant submitted that SA has been filed challenging the Possession Notice. However, pursuant to filing of the subject SA, respondent bank further issued e-auction notice dated 25.10.2013, fixing the sale on 29.11.2013, and requested for an early hearing. Counsel for the applicant submitted that SA has been filed challenging the Possession Notice. However, pursuant to filing of the subject SA, respondent bank further issued e-auction notice dated 25.10.2013, fixing the sale on 29.11.2013, and requested for an early hearing. In view of urgency expressed, IA 1174/13 (emergent) and IA 1175/13 (advance hearing) are taken up for hearing and allowed. Consequently, IA 1176/13 (Stay) is taken up for hearing. Counsel for the respondent bank while opposing grant of stay sought time for filing counter to the stay petition and further submitted that the applicant has not amended the SA and filed only IA challenging the sale notice, hence the subject stay petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the unit is running and coconut oil is being extracted in the unit. Counsel for the respondent bank further submitted that since the unit is running applicants are capable of paying the outstanding amount of Rs.1.83 crores with further interest. Heard arguments. Without going to merits of the case, considering the contentions and submissions made, stay granted subject to payment of a sum of Rs.44 Lacs (Rupees Forty Four Lacs only) to the respondent bank in two instalments, the 1st instalment of Rs.22 Lacs to be paid on or before the time and date of auction, i.e., 29.11.2013, and the 2nd instalment of Rs.22 Lacs to be paid on or before 31.12.2013. Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with the auction, but not to confirm the sale. However, in case of non-payment of any of the instalments, the stay granted shall automatically stand vacated and the respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in the matter. For filing proof of payment, and for vakalat and counter by the respondent bank and enquiry, call on 07.01.2014.” The abovesaid interim order is under challenge in this revision petition. 5. The first plea taken by the counsel for the revision petitioners is that the order is bereft of reasons; the Sarfaesi Appeal is pending since January, 2013 and no counter has been filed by the Bank and, therefore, they should not have proceeded with the auction and the Tribunal should have stayed the auction at the outset. 5. The first plea taken by the counsel for the revision petitioners is that the order is bereft of reasons; the Sarfaesi Appeal is pending since January, 2013 and no counter has been filed by the Bank and, therefore, they should not have proceeded with the auction and the Tribunal should have stayed the auction at the outset. It is also to be noticed that the order under challenge, dated 7.11.13, is also sought to be reviewed by the petitioners by filing a review petition dated 21.11.13 and, according to the petitioners, the review is still pending. Nevertheless, the revision petitioners are invoking the power of this Court to set aside that order stating that there is no justification for passing the order for deposit for the purpose of granting stay of the auction proceedings. 6. We have heard Mr.Balachandar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. 7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the Tribunal has considered only the interlocutory application based on the affidavit filed by the revision petitioners. We find that the affidavit filed in support of this application only speaks about the irregularities in the auction sale notice and there is a plea taken that the action of the respondent Bank is contrary to law and not according to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In para-5, it has been stated that the statutory authority could invoke the provisions of the Act only in the form and manner prescribed. The mandatory procedure for affixing the possession notice in conspicuous part of the property as prescribed under the Act has not been followed. The possession notice has not been served on the applicant as required under the Act. 8. This Court is of the opinion that these are issues that can be considered by the Tribunal at the time of adjudication of the application, but, however, for the purpose of interlocutory proceedings, the Tribunal has granted a conditional order of payment of Rs.44 Lakhs as against the claim of the respondent Bank, which has already been indicated above in the earlier part of the order. 9. It is not as if the Tribunal has declined to grant any interim relief. 9. It is not as if the Tribunal has declined to grant any interim relief. All that the Tribunal has stated is that, to safeguard the interest of the revision petitioners and the respondent Bank, a condition has been imposed to deposit certain amount and the auction has been stayed subject to such condition, viz., deposit of the said amount in two installments. The bank was called upon to state its defense in the meanwhile. 10. We are of the considered view that the interim order passed by the Tribunal is only to safeguard the interest of the revision petitioners and the respondent bank pending further consideration of all these pleas taken by the revision petitioners. There appears to be no serious infirmity in such an exercise. 11. We also notice that in the affidavit dated 5.11.13, nowhere have the petitioners denied his liability except stating that the auction sale notice is bad. It is another matter that the possession notice is challenged in Sarfaesi Appeal and that has to be decided in the appeal on merits. For the purpose of this interlocutory order, from the pleadings of the revision petitioner, we find no infirmity in the order under challenge. 12. One other reason we find no ground to interfere by way of this revision is that the review filed by the petitioners is pending before the very same authority and challenging the very same proceedings. There cannot be two parallel proceedings on the same issue, as admittedly the review has not been withdrawn. 13. For all the above reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order at this stage. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the revision petitioner to pursue the review petition for early hearing after noticing the respondent bank in a manner prescribed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.