JUDGMENT U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - Heard Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned counsel for the petitioners and having regard to the nature of the prayer in this writ petition, we do not consider any necessity to issue notices to the respondents rather the writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The innocuous prayer of the petitioner bank is to give a direction to the 4th respondent/ Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam, to dispose of S.A.No.453 of 2019 pending on its file. In view of the interim orders in S.A. No.116 of 2021, the petitioner bank could not complete the post auction proceedings and realize the debt amount from the respondents is the submission of the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioner that S.A.No.453 of 2019 is sufficiently an old matter of the year 2019. It is further submitted that pleadings have been complete and matter is coming up hearing of arguments. The petitioners counsel further submits that S.A.No.453 of 2019 is connected with S.A.No.116 of 2021 and S.A.No.453 of 2019 is posted to 16.03.2023. 3. In view of the above submission that the S.A is connected with S.A.No.116 of 2021 and both can be heard and disposed of simultaneously, we give liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT, Visakhapatnam, and file applications seeking advancement of the hearing of S.A.No.453 of 2019 as well as S.A.No.116 of 2021 and we hope and trust that the DRT will consider their applications on merits and pass appropriate orders for fixation of the final hearing of both S.As. 4. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in this case shall stand closed.