JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2019 [Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal (T) No. 113/2013 whereby the appeal preferred by Sunil Kumar Tiwary [the respondent No.2 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] against the entire process of auction purchase has been rejected on the ground that the mutation of the property in question has been illegally done in favour of the auction purchasers. 2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, submits that a supplementary affidavit dated 05.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said case bringing on record a copy of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013 whereby ex-parte preliminary decree dated 06.06.2000 and final decree dated 12.01.2004 with all consequential benefits have been set aside. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-S/1 to the said supplementary affidavit. It is thus submitted that further cause of action pursuant to passing of the aforesaid ex-parte preliminary and final decree no more survives. 3. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 of W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019, though does not dispute the existence of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013, however, submits that the respondent No.7 was not a party in the said case. Moreover, at present the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question pursuant to the auction sale. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both the cases jointly submit that if at all the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question, the said possession is unlawful, particularly, in view of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013. 5. Be that as it may. Since after passing of the judgment dated 27.09.2022 in M.A. No. 14/2013, the issue raised in the present writ petitions has become academic in nature, there is no need to further proceed in the present matters. 6. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law for redressal of their respective subsisting grievances, if any. 8. 6. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under law for redressal of their respective subsisting grievances, if any. 8. Consequently, I.A. No. 5673/2019 [In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019] also stands disposed of.