JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners call into question the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned District Magistrate (I/C) Dibrugarh, whereby under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'), an officer was authorized to take physical possession of the secured property and to forward such assets, property and documents to the secured creditors. 3. A notice under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 4.3.2014 indicating that an amount of Rs.1,15,68,928.24 was lying outstanding as on 13.2.2014 against the petitioners. It was indicated therein that unless the aforesaid amount with future interest and incidental expenses, costs etc. are paid within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, further action would be taken in terms of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 4. It does not appear that the petitioners had taken recourse to Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act and subsequently, the Bank has issued notice under Section 13(4), and a possession notice under Section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was issued on 20.5.2014. As a sequel thereto, the order dated 15.12.2016 was issued. The petitioners filed an appeal against the possession notice dated 20.5.2014, as stated in paragraph 16, under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which was registered as S.A. No.20/2018. It is also stated that along with the said application, the petitioners had filed an application for stay of the possession notice dated 20.5.2014 and the order dated 15.12.2016 and the said application was registered as I.A. No.35/2018. It is further pleaded that I.A. No.35/2018 (S.A. No.20/2018) came up for final hearing on 22.02.2019 and, subsequently, without knowledge of the petitioners, S.A. No.20/2018 was withdrawn by the learned counsel and, accordingly, by an order passed on that, the case was dismissed on withdrawal. 5. The petitioners have not indicated as to when they became aware of the withdrawal of S.A. No.20/2018, but the facts remains that the petitioners are aware that S.A. No.20/2018 was dismissed on withdrawal and yet no further action was taken by them. 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 5. The petitioners have not indicated as to when they became aware of the withdrawal of S.A. No.20/2018, but the facts remains that the petitioners are aware that S.A. No.20/2018 was dismissed on withdrawal and yet no further action was taken by them. 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.