ORDER : The appellant is an assignee of the Bank of India and an asset reconstruction company which had initiated measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act") and had also obtained an order of possession of the mortgaged properties (two items) under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. 2. The borrowers moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi ("DRT" for short) under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act which proceeding has been registered and numbered as S.A. No.122 of 2015. In the said proceedings, an interim order has been passed by the DRT on 10th April, 2015 to the following effect : "8. Heard both the parties and perused the records and I am of this view that right to property is a constitutional right and as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ram Kishun v. State of UP" only that much portion of the property be sold which would suffice to recover the dues of the bank. In the present matter the valuation of the first property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana is worth more than Rs. 8 crores. This Tribunal is of the view that let respondent FI sell the property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana after taking possession of the same. However, the respondent FI/Receiver is hereby restrained from taking the physical possession of the property situated at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi." 3. Aggrieved the appellant had moved the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi ("DRAT" for short) and being unsuccessful in the said forum had moved the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order refused to interfere with the orders passed by the DRT and DRAT giving rise to the present appeal. 4. The matter lies within a short compass. Having regard to the object behind the enactment of the Securitisation Act, details of which hardly would require a reiteration, we are of the view that the DRT ought to have been slow in limiting the choice of the mortgagee and its assignee insofar as the sale of the mortgaged properties to realize its dues is concerned. When the properties (two items) are mortgaged by the borrower as security in case of default it is always open to the Bank to proceed against either or both the properties simultaneously. When the properties (two items) are mortgaged by the borrower as security in case of default it is always open to the Bank to proceed against either or both the properties simultaneously. The only care that has to be taken is that the sale should not seek to realize any amount in excess of the dues claimed, a situation that has not even remotely arisen in the present case. 5. Another fact that cannot escape the notice of the Court is the pendency of S.A. No.122 of 2015 before the DRT for over two years and the continuance of the interim order dated 10th April, 2015 which has held the field all along to the prejudice of the borrower as well as the creditor. 6. In view of the fact that the law does not impose a restraint on the Bank to proceed against either or all of the secured properties for realization of its dues, in the facts of the present case we interfere with the orders passed by the DRT, DRAT and the High Court leaving it open for the Bank to take further steps in the matter in respect of the mortgaged properties. 7. The appeal consequently is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. 8. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondents and having regard to the fact that the second item of the mortgaged property is a residential property we grant thirty (30) days' time with effect from today to the respondents to vacate the said property and handover peaceful possession thereof to the Bank. This will be subject to filing of an undertaking before the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today incorporating the aforesaid requirement. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.