( 1 ) THESE appeals arise under S. 32 (9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter called the 'act') and are directed against the order made by the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in Misc. Cases Nos. 83 and 85 of 1978 in E. P. Case No. 2 of 1978 on the file of that Court on the 11th Sept. , 1984 rejecting both the petitions made by the appellants herein under O. 21, R. 90, C. P. C. for setting aside the auction sale of immoveable properties belonging to the appellant, pursuant to orders of the Court made in the execution case referred to supra.

( 2 ) THE auction sale in question was held on 15-6-1978 and thereat the 2nd respondent, who is the same contesting respondent in both these appeals was the successful bidder having offered the highest bid of Rs. 4,25,000/the Court below having since refused to set aside that auction sale the same has resulted in turn in the dismissal of the application made by the appellant, and has further resorted in the confirmation of the sale itself. In these appeals which are necessarily to be disposed of by a common order the only point that arises for consideration is whether the auction sale held on 15-6-1978 in respect of the property of the judgment-writer viz. , appellant-2 (who will hereinafter be referred to as the judgment-debtor) is liable to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 3 ) THESE appeals brings to the fore the persistent effort made by the judgment-debtor so far unsuccess fully to shake off the auction purchaser from its back after having composed successfully its differences with the decree-holder by paying all the decretal dues and receiving in turn a certificate of full satisfaction accompanied by a written acknowledgment notifying the court below that in consideration of having received all its dues to its satisfaction, it was withdrawing the objections filed earlier in opposition to the application for setting aside the auctionsale. In short the decree-holder having admittedly notified the court that it had no objection to the auction-sale being set aside and the execution petition be closed by entering full satisfaction, the judgment-debtor still finds itself in the predicament of being non-suited following the rejection of its application for setting aside the auction sale.

( 4 ) A few more facts necessary to be stated for consideration of the grievance of the judgment-debtor are as follows :

( 5 ) THE records indicate that as far back as the year 1972 the judgment-debtor a partnership firm intending to run a hotel in the suit property viz. , a large size building consisting of three floors standing on land measuring about 35 guntas, admittedly situate in a prime locality in the City of Belgaum on the Poona-Bangalore National highway had sought and obtained a covered loan from the 1st respondent the State Financial Corporation (to be hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) in the sum of Rs. 3,10,000/to be repaid in fixed annual instalments with interest. It so happened that after some time, the judgment debtor fell behind in the payment of instalments and, therefore, the decree-holder had to apply to the Court of the District Judge at Belgaum by filing an application under S. 31 of the Act for an order of attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's property covered by a deed of mortgage and hypothecation. Further the decree-holder had also obtained an order of attachment before judgment and subsequently the judgment-debtor suffered by consent an order for recovery of money in the sum due to the decree-holder and that order came to be made under a compromise duly recorded by the Court by an Order dt. 3-4-1978. In terms of that order the judgment-debtor was allowed to work out its liability to the decree-holder in phased manner but even so it turned out that the judgment-debtor was unable to comply with the terms of the compromise with the result the decree-holder was forced to put in execution the o