ORDER : Vineet Kothari, J. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Appellate Tribunal-), Chennai, in RA No. 92/2010 (OA No. 464/2000 on the file of DRT, Bangalore) dated 12-9-2013, vide Annexure-A, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Karwar Branch v. Nevis John Virgino Moraes (including respondent Nos. 12 and 13-Pradeep s/o Ramachandra Naik & Smt. Sushila w/o Ramachandra Naik). 2. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the original loan was obtained by respondent No. 1-Nevis John Virgino Moraes and others, which was outstanding and it was obtained for the development of land and for construction of certain apartments. The land in question was also mortgaged in favour of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the apartment purchasers, like the present petitioners were also liable to the extent of their share in the mortgaged property, while reversing the order passed by the DRT, Bengaluru in OA No. 464/2000, which discharged them on the ground that the apartment purchasers are bona fide purchasers, without the knowledge of the outstanding loan and issuance of the notice for recovery by the respondent Bank. 3. The reasons assigned by the Appellate Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference: '7. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer reveals that the claim of the appellant Bank in OA has been allowed against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the claim of the appellant Bank against respondent Nos. 6 to 17 and the OA schedule mentioned property has been dismissed. It is seen that the first defendant is a property developer and the defendants 2 to 4 are the owners of the schedule mentioned property and the 5th defendant is the guarantor to the loan transaction. The first defendant availed certain credit facilities from the appellant Bank and the property belonging to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were mortgaged in favour of the appellant Bank and the 5th defendant stood as guarantor for the loan transaction. The appellant bank filed the OA against the Defendants 1 to 5 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,32,885/- and Defendants 6 to 17 were impleaded as parties to the OA subsequently. It is seen that the mortgage of the schedule mentioned property was created in favour of the appellant bank on 19-9-1998 and 30-7-1999. The appellant bank filed the OA against the Defendants 1 to 5 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,32,885/- and Defendants 6 to 17 were impleaded as parties to the OA subsequently. It is seen that the mortgage of the schedule mentioned property was created in favour of the appellant bank on 19-9-1998 and 30-7-1999. It is seen that the 6th respondent purchased the property on 23-11-1999, the 7th respondent on 17-6-1998, 8th respondent on 25-8-2000, the 14th and 15th respondents on 25-8-2000. The 16th and 17th respondents did not file any document to prove their date of purchase of the flat. 8. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below reveals that the learned Presiding Officer has proceeded to dismiss the claim against the defendants 6 to 17 on the ground that most of the purchasers are bona fide purchasers without knowledge of the issuance of the notice by the applicant bank and that the public notice is not sufficient intimation to all the parties regarding the liability of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and about the mortgage of the schedule mentioned property in favour of the appellant bank and that the subsequent purchasers have no occasion to verify the encumbrance over the property which they intended to purchase as it is an equitable mortgage. 9. It has already been held by learned Presiding Officer that defendants 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for the OA claim. It can be seen from the various documents filed by the defendants that except the 7th respondent all other respondents have purchased the property subsequent to the mortgage created by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the appellant bank and hence the right of these defendants over the schedule mentioned property is subject to the mortgage and hence respondent Nos. 6, 8 to 17 are liable to the OA claim to the extent of their respective shares in the Schedule A-property. 10. Therefore, in view of the above, this Tribunal is driven to pass the following order : 'Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are jointly and severally liable for the OA claim and Defendant Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are liable for the OA claim to the extent of the share in the mortgage property'. 11. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are jointly and severally liable for the OA claim and Defendant Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are liable for the OA claim to the extent of the share in the mortgage property'. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The learned Presiding Officer is directed to recall the Recovery Certificate already issued and issue a fresh Recovery Certificate in terms of this order. S/- Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai.' 4. Mr. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that the present petitioners, who are the flat owners also approached the said Bank for the loan for purchase of the said flat. Against the sanctioned loan in their favour, the amount released against the petitioners, was credited and adjusted in the loan account of the Respondents borrowers and that the petitioners-liability therefore stood discharged. Therefore, after the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, vide Annexure-A dated 12-9-2013, the respondent Bank could not have issued a further notice at Annexure-B dated 16-4-2015, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), calling upon the original borrowers as well as the flat owners to pay bank the outstanding loan amount to the tune of Rs. 3.29 crores as on 1-4-2015, as it was essentially the liability of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 only. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners have filed their objections in pursuance of the said notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, vide communication dated 12-6-2015. He also brought to the notice of the Court that the communication dated 2-2-2010, issued by the respondent-Bank to the Tahasildar BAAD-III Village, Taluk : Karwar, informing the Tahsildar about cancellation of charge created on the property insofar as the land bearing R.S. No. 48A1 Hissa 17 and land bearing RS No. 1428 Hissa 2 of Konegram, BAAD-III, Hobli BAAD, Plot No. 21, II Floor, measuring an area of 196 sq. ft. out of 0.4.10 guntas. On the basis of the said communication, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to urge that the charge over the property against the present petitioners for the loan sanctioned in their favour stood discharged by the respondent Bank itself. ft. out of 0.4.10 guntas. On the basis of the said communication, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to urge that the charge over the property against the present petitioners for the loan sanctioned in their favour stood discharged by the respondent Bank itself. Therefore, the petitioners along with the original borrowers cannot be called upon vide Annexure-B dated 16-4-2015 to square up the loan obligation of the original borrowers and the land developers. He also submitted that the petitioners and the Bank also entered into One Time settlement of the dues with the respondents and the said settlement was arrived at vide Annexure-G dated 12-11-2009. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Bank has urged before us that under the said settlement only a portion of the flat purchased by the petitioners was to be occupied by them, whereas they have encroached upon more area than the area allowed to be occupied by them under said settlement. 6. Having hear the learned counsels, we are satisfied that the present writ petition is misconceived and we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 12-9-2013. 7. The said Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the DRT, Bengaluru has fallen into error in observing that the flat purchasers are not liable on the ground of they being the bona fide purchasers ignoring the fact that the land and building stood mortgaged with the respondent Bank to the extent of their share in the mortgaged property, they would also be liable. Therefore, so far as the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, we do not find any error. 8. So far as the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 16-4-2015, to the borrowers along with the present petitioners and other flat owners, is concerned, we find that this writ petition is premature, since the petitioners have also have filed their objections vide their communication dated 12-6-2015, which are not yet decided by the respondent-Bank. The Court cannot enter into the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners at this stage. 9. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act envisages the respondent Bank to determine such objections before proceeding further under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said process is yet to be completed by the respondent Bank. 10. The Court cannot enter into the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners at this stage. 9. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act envisages the respondent Bank to determine such objections before proceeding further under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said process is yet to be completed by the respondent Bank. 10. So far as the One Time settlement is concerned, the question of facts have been raised or are involved in the present case and this Court cannot go into the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is for the Bank to decide the said objections filed by the petitioners by a speaking order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order, they can redress their grievance in accordance with law before the competent forum under the Act. 11. With the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs.