Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the principal borrower and the guarantor against the docket orders of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, dated 29.10.2025 and 18.11.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal Dy.No.1227 of 2025, which was filed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.3624 of 2025 in S.A.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. When the borrower, who is the 1st petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount, the State Bank of India has initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’). Relevant notice under the Act was issued to sell the secured asset. Challenging the same, the petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by way of filing S.A.No.545 of 2025. Along with the same, the petitioners have also filed I.A.No.3624 of 2025, seeking stay of the proceedings initiated by the bank. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, by order dated 07.10.2025, has declined to grant stay and dismissed the said stay application. Challenging the said order dated 07.10.2025, the petitioners have approached the appellate authority, which is the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, and filed interlocutory applications seeking stay of further proceedings and for waiver of pre-deposit. The appellate authority, by the impugned docket orders dated 29.10.2025 and 18.11.2025, adjourned the said applications without passing any interim orders as sought for. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

4. In fact, as per the order dated 29.10.2025, while issuing notice to the respondents therein, the appellate authority has posted the matter to 16.12.2025 for disposal of I.A.No.703 of 2025, which is filed for waiver of pre-deposit. By order dated 18.11.2025, the other interlocutory application stood posted to 04.12.2025 for appearance of the parties and for filing affidavit of service in compliance with the order dated 29.10.2025.

5. Therefore, when the petitioners have already approached the appellate authority and filed interlocutory applications seeking interim reliefs and when the said interlocutory applications are posted to 04.12.2025 and 16.12.2025 respectively, they cannot seek any relief from this Court by way of filing this writ petition during the pendency of the said appeal and interlocutory applications before the appellate authority. The petitioners have to pursue their remedy before the appellate authority itself. Instead of pursuing the interlocutory applications on the scheduled dates of hearing i.e., on 04.12.2025 and 16.12.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appellate authority is not considering the said interlocutory applications. It is a premature contention. When the matters are posted to 04.12.2025 and 16.12.2025, it is really beyond our comprehension as to how she could say that the appellate authority is not taking up the matters for hearing. The petitioners have to wait till the said dates of hearing and then pursue the matter before the appellate authority.

7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the appellate authority on 04.12.2025 and 16.12.2025. The appellate authority shall consider the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties therein, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed.