Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned Counsel on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent State Bank of Hyderabad. In view of the order proposed to be passed by us now, we may not be required to advert to all the facts, in great detail.

2. When the respondent Bank, which has extended certain financial assistance to the petitioner, has declared the loan account as a 'non-performing asset' and then, raised demand notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, demanding the petitioner to liquidate the outstanding liability of Rs. 2,42,39,768 as on 1.7.2015, the petitioner did not honour the said notice and ignored it in effect. Hence, the follow-up action under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act has been initiated by putting the property to sale on 2.12.2015. At that stage, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 40020 of 2015. Entertaining the said Writ Petition, on 4.1.2016, a Division Bench of this Court directed stay of auction pursuant to the e-auction notice dated 2.12.2015, on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 100 lacs, out of which Rs. 50 lacs was ordered to be paid on or before 11.00 a.m. on 11.1.2016 and the balance amount of Rs. 50 lacs to be paid within a further period of four weeks thereafter. It was made clear by this Court that in the event of default in paying any of the amounts referred to above, it is open to the respondent Bank to take further steps without reference to the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. The writ petitioner could pool up only Rs. 50 lacs and paid the same on 11.1.2016. Thereafter, the Bank has not conducted the sale, but before the four weeks' period thereafter expired, say by 11.2.2016, the petitioner has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 50 lacs, as ordered by this Court on 4.1.2016, and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, the 1st respondent Bank has once again taken out e-auction sale notice on 20.02.2016, putting all the three secured assets to sale by e-auction mode. The auction was sought to be conducted on 24.3.2016 between 04.00 and 05.00 p.m. The reserve price for the 1st property was set at Rs. 356.95 lacs, while the reserve price for the 2nd property was set at Rs. 24.25 lacs and for the 3rd property, the reserve price was fixed at Rs. 20.30 lacs. Though the auction was held, no bids have been received with regard to the 1st property. Insofar as properties 2 and 3 are concerned, they fetched the highest bids standing at Rs. 26.15 lacs and Rs. 23.90 lacs respectively. Finding the response with regard to properties 2 and 3 as fairly reasonable and good, the Authorized Officer of the 1st respondent Bank has accepted the initial deposit of 25 percent from the best bidders and the balance 75 percent of the bid amount is yet to be received, because there is still time available for the auction purchasers to deposit the same. At this stage, this present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Mr. Ramanna Dora would submit that the petitioner is anxious to protect the two properties, which have now been put to sale and to save the said properties, he wants to pay the same amount which has fetched in the auctions, namely Rs. 26.15 lacs and Rs. 23.90 lacs. Insofar as the 1st property is concerned, Sri Ramanna Dora would also submit that the petitioner will pay up the balance Rs. 50 lacs as per the order passed by this Court on 4.1.2016 in Writ Petition No. 40020 of 2015.

4. Though Mr. A. Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank wants time to secure detailed instructions in the matter and file a counter-affidavit, but however, on the legal principle that a borrower's right to redeem the property cannot be extinguished till the title to the mortgaged property is transferred in favour of the purcha