JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner is guarantor in respect of a loan given to M/s Suyash Craft Mill Private Ltd. Since the loan could not be repaid in time, therefore, Punjab National Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by invoking provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, feeling aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court challenging the e-auction notice dated 01.11.2021. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's asset, which has been mortgaged, in favour of the Bank is situated in District Dehradun and against the e-auction notice, impugned in this writ petition, petitioner had filed a securitization application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. He further submits that on account of vacancy, on the post of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 3. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate appearing for respondent-Bank also do not dispute this submission made on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had filed his securitization application before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. He further concedes that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is non-functional, on account of vacancy on the post of Presiding Officer. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of non-functioning of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, petitioner is entitled to some interim-relief to protect the secured assets or else the purpose of filing securitization application itself would be frustrated. 5. Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate appearing for respondent-Bank submits that as many as four properties have been put to sale in the impugned e-auction notice, out of which, three belong to the principal borrower and only one belongs to the petitioner, namely, Shop No. 19, Ward Raj Plaza, Opposite Andhra Bank at 75-A Rajpur Road. He further submits that the principal borrower has never approached any judicial forum, available to him under law. Thus, according to him, this is a proxy-litigation by the guarantor, on behalf of principal borrower. He further submits that protection, if granted, should be limited only to the property belonging to the petitioner. 6. He further submits that the principal borrower has never approached any judicial forum, available to him under law. Thus, according to him, this is a proxy-litigation by the guarantor, on behalf of principal borrower. He further submits that protection, if granted, should be limited only to the property belonging to the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the fact that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is non-functional for several months and also in view of the fact that petitioner's securitization application is pending, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier, the sale of petitioner's aforesaid property, if made, be not confirmed. However, this will be without prejudice to the right of the Bank to proceed against other property, in accordance with law as mentioned in the e-auction notice.