6.It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the only ground on which the petitioner challenges the impugned proclamation of sale is that the petitioner had become the absolute owner of the property way back in 1996, having purchased the same from the guarantor's son. The guarantor's son got the property under a registered partition deed, dated 05.12.1996. The mortgage itself was created only on 20.07.1998. Therefore, the petitioner claims that her own property cannot be brought to sale. Though the contention raised by the petitioner deserves consideration, we do not think that this is the right forum for her to raise such a contention. The decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 19 of the RDBI Act, 1993, was not a simple decree for payment of money. It is a decree for payment of money and for the enforcement of the mortgage. It is in pursuance of the debt recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the Recovery Officer II, has issued the proclamation of sale. Therefore, today to interfere with the proclamation of sale would tantamount to setting at naught the mortgage decree passed by the Tribunal, which is not permissible especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has several remedies available under the special enactment itself.
