NAFISUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner points out that I.A. No.8351 of 2025 has been filed by the Respondent claiming the same to have been filed by the petitioner. On this being pointed out, learned counsel on behalf of Bank admits the fault and does not press the instant Interlocutory Application.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that since DRT, Ranchi is not functional, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to take recourse to the writ petition as his only house is put on auction purchase and he is facing an eminent apprehension of dispossession.

(3.) In order to buttress the point, Annexure 8 series have been enclosed to show that although the party had been appearing for State, but none have appeared on behalf of the Bank and in the meantime, Deputy Commissioner has proceeded against the petitioner.