JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 7/10/2021 passed in W.P.No. 17392/2021. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal is as under: The respondent No.1/petitioner availed overdraft facilities for Rs.70,00,000.00 at the appellant/bank and mortgaged the schedule property. The respondent No.1 did not clear the outstanding dues. The appellant/bank issued a demand notice under Subsec. (2) of Sec. 13 of the SARFAESI Act on 11/11/2019. Further, possession notice was issued and authorized officer has taken the possession of the vacant schedule property. The appellant/bank has initiated proceedings to auction the schedule property. The respondent No.1 requested to stop the auction proceedings and undertook to remit the requisite amount by 12/12/2021. On the representation of respondent No.1, the appellant/ bank cancelled the auction proceedings. Thereafter, second sale notice was issued by the appellant/bank fixing the auction date on 24/6/2021. The respondent No.1 requested the appellant/bank to consider the application requesting to consider the case of respondent No.1 for OTS, as per Annexure-D. The appellant/bank accepted the request of the respondent No.1 vide letter dtd. 21/5/2021. The second auction was also deferred, since the OTS proposal of respondent No.1 was approved by the bank. The respondent No.1 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the OTS. The appellant/bank has issued a third sale notice fixing the auction date on 15/9/2021. The appellant/bank held an auction on 15/9/2021 and respondent No.2 herein was the successful bidder and appellant/bank issued a sale confirmation letter to the respondent No.2 and further a sale certificate was registered on 18/9/2021, in favour of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 challenged the action of the appellant/bank in initiating recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I in S.A.No.265/2021, which is pending for consideration. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the appellant/bank to consider the application dtd. 29/5/2021, and further sought for a direction not to proceed further with any legal action against the schedule property of the petitioner and also sought for a direction to the DRT-I to consider Annexure-J filed by respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has sought for an interim order. 29/5/2021, and further sought for a direction not to proceed further with any legal action against the schedule property of the petitioner and also sought for a direction to the DRT-I to consider Annexure-J filed by respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has sought for an interim order. The learned Single Judge was pleased to grant the impugned order of status quo with regard to the possession of the mortgaged site, till next date of hearing subject to the respondent No.1 depositing with the appellant/bank a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 within a week. The appellant/bank aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 7/10/2021, filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/bank submits that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is not maintainable as the respondent No.1 has availed the remedy by filing S.A.No.265/2021 before the DRT-I at Bengaluru. He submits that during the pendency of the S.A. before the DRT-I, the respondent No.1 has no right to file a writ petition. He further submits that the appellant/bank has already created third party interest in the schedule property. He further submits that inspite of granting sufficient time to respondent No.1 to clear the outstanding dues, the respondent No.1 failed to clear the outstanding dues. He further submits that the appellant/bank has initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that if reasonable time is granted to respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is ready to deposit the entire outstanding dues. She further supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopts the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 has availed overdraft facilities for Rs.70,00,000.00 from the appellant/bank and also created a charge over the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 has failed to repay the outstanding dues. The appellant/bank issued a demand notice under Sub-sec. 8. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 has availed overdraft facilities for Rs.70,00,000.00 from the appellant/bank and also created a charge over the schedule property. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 has failed to repay the outstanding dues. The appellant/bank issued a demand notice under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 of the SARFAESI Act to respondent No.1 and called upon the respondent No.1 to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.76,37,074.09. The respondent No.1, inspite of service of notice, has not repaid the outstanding dues. The appellant/bank issued possession notice and the authorized officer has taken the possession of the vacant schedule property. The appellant/bank has issued sale notices on three different occasions. At the request of respondent No.1, the appellant/bank could not conduct the auction. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, the respondent No.1 has not repaid the outstanding dues. On 15/9/2021, the appellant/bank has auctioned the schedule property. The respondent No.2 was the successful bidder and made payment of Rs.1,12,10,000.00 and sale certificate dtd. 15/9/2021, was registered on 18/9/2021. The respondent No.1 was well aware about the said facts. Respondent No.1 filed the petition in S.A.No.265/2021 before the DRT-I, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.1/petitioner filed this writ petition and the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant an interim order of status quo with regard to possession of the mortgaged site property, till next date of hearing, subject to respondent No.1 depositing with the appellant/bank Rs.25,00,000.00 within one week. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1, in terms of the impugned order, has deposited Rs.25,00,000.00 with the appellant/bank. The impugned order effectively resulted in staying of all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and defeats the object of SARFAESI Act. Filing of writ petition by respondent No.1 during the pendency of S.A.No.265/2021 before the DRT-I, is nothing but an abuse of process of court. 10. In identical matter, this court in W.P.Nos.35564-35566/2015 passed an ex-parte adinterim order on 26/8/2015, directing status quo to be maintained with regard to possession of the mortgaged properties subject to the borrowers making a payment of Rs.1.00 Crore with respondentPhoenix. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex, in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.257-259/2022 in the case of PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS., vide judgment dtd. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex, in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.257-259/2022 in the case of PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR & ORS., vide judgment dtd. 12/1/2022, observed as under: "If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is tobe taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable." 11. The said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case in hand. As observed above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the impugned order is arbitrary and erroneous and same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dtd. 7/10/2021, passed in W.P.No. 17392/2021, is hereby quashed and set aside. The ex-parte ad-interim order dtd. 7/10/2021, stands vacated. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ petitioner seeks liberty to make an application to the appellant/bank to reconsider the proposal of the petitioner for settlement of the outstanding dues. It is needless to say that if such a representation is made by the petitioner, the appellant/bank may consider the same, in accordance with law.