ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Sundeep, learned counsel for the caveat petitioner/respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram of East Godavari District in Criminal.M.P.No.196 of 2025, as illegal and unsustainable. 3. The 1 st petitioner is the principal borrower, being represented by its Managing Director, had availed a loan from respondent No.2-State Bank of India. The 2 nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the 1 st petitioner. The 3 rd petitioner is the legal heir of the surety of the 1 st petitioner. As the 1 st petitioner committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, the Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petition under Section 14 of the Act was filed before respondent No.6-learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Rajamahendravaram. The said petition was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the property in question. Learned Advocate Commissioner has taken possession while executing the warrant issued to that effect. Thereafter, the proceedings are closed before the learned Magistrate. 4. Now, the said order of learned Magistrate is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the debtor and the guarantor has only offered plot Nos.18 and 99 as security for the loan amount and they did not offer the vacant site covered by plot No.100, but, the said plot No.100 was also taken possession by learned Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Act. So, the grievance of the writ petitioners is only relating to plot No.100, which was also taken possession by learned Advocate Commissioner, as ordered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. As can be seen from the schedule of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by the debtor and the guarantor in favour of the Bank and particularly, from schedule property-2, which contains the list of title deeds deposited, the 3 rd document i.e., sale deed dated 07.04.1979 which was deposited by the debtor and the guarantor, it relates to plot No.100 also. 6. Further, admittedly the writ petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by way of filing appropriate proceedings to that effect. 6. Further, admittedly the writ petitioners have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by way of filing appropriate proceedings to that effect. There is a delay in filing the said proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. So, a delay condonation petition was also filed. They are now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. Without pursuing the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad where the writ petitioners have already challenged the impugned order, the writ petitioners have approached this Court again by way of filing writ petition and sought to maintain parallel proceedings, challenging the said order both before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and this Court, which is not permissible under law. 7. When questioned, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that as the petition is not yet numbered in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court, as auction is scheduled to be held tomorrow only i.e., on 06.11.2025. The impugned order was passed long back in the month of August, 2025. The Advocate Commissioner’s report executing the warrant was considered and closed by learned Magistrate on 11.08.2025. Now, at this late hour, the writ petitioners have approached this Court without pursuing the petition filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. So, in the said facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere and entertain this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, where the order was already challenged. 9. In view of the urgency that is now urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad shall register the said petition that is filed by the writ petitioners if it is otherwise in order and hear the same and dispose of the same expeditiously, according to law, on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.