(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Certain orders have come to be passed by the Recovery Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The order passed is in R.P. No. 44 of 2001. The order dated 21.6.2006 contained in Annexure-20 and the subsequent orders thereafter are the bone of contentions in the present writ application.
(3.) There is long history behind the present litigation but this Court is concerned with the case of the petitioner who claims himself to be the legal entity and a so-called company duly registered under the Companies Act. They have had to approach the High Court in the present writ application because the Debt Recovery Tribunal refused to respond suitably and favourably to the objections against the order of attachment of property which belongs to the present petitioner. The present petitioner claims to be the original owner having purchased the property from respondent no. 2 for consideration. For certain outstanding loan and dues standing against respondent no. 2, the property of the present petitioner has been attached as well by Debt Recovery Tribunal.