V.G. SABHAHIT, J.—These appeals are filed by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called as ‘KSFC’ for short) ‘the first respondent in W.P. Nos. 29679/09 and 30523/09 being aggrieved by the order date 26.10.2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by holding that the writ petitioner, is the first charge holder and the first respondent-appellant herein is the second charge holder in respect of the property and having regard to the settled law that only after the claim of the first charge holder is settled, the balance amount has to be paid to the second charge holder and appellant herein would step into for realising the amount which is due to it. Accordingly, set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petitions by order date 26.10.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter called as ‘DRT’ for brevity) in AOR No. 7/09.

2. The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRT in AOR No. 7/09 date 28.8.2009 contending that it was having first charge over the property in respect of which charge was created and thereafter second charge has been created in favour of the appellant herein. A proposal was made for accepting Rs. 1,75,00,000/- out of which Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs had to be paid on or before 19.2.2007 and the balance of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to be paid by 14.3.2007, since the amount was not deposited as per the said proposal which had been initially accepted by the borrower, the property was brought to sale for consideration of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- in the private sale. However, the said sale was set aside by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 9310/07 date 25.9.2007, wherein this Court accepted the contention that property ought to have been sold in public auction and not in private auction and directed that the property shall be sold in public auction. Thereafter, the property was sold in public auction for an amount of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-.

3. It was the contention of the first respondent herein before the learned single Judge that since they hold the first charge, they are entitled to recover the amount that is due to them in a sum of Rs. 3,62,00,000/-. The order passed in appeal filed by the appellant herein before the DRT holding that the claim of the first respondent herein has to be restricted to Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs. 1,87,00,000/- to be recovered by the appellant herein, cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties held that though there was a proposal for one time settlement by receiving Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, the amount due was more than Rs. 3,76,00,000/-. The amount which was agreed to be paid in the first instance, i.e., Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs had to be paid on or before 19.2.2007 and the balance of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to be paid by 14.3.2007, was not paid and an application was filed for extension of time for payment of the said amount. Thereafter, the sale which was held by private negotiation has been set aside by this Court and the amount of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- is realised in the second auction. Wherefore, the entire amount is liable to be appropriated by the first respondent-State Bank of India. Accordingly, since the appellant herein is the second charge holder, if any amount remains after recovery of the amount due to the first charge holder-first respondent herein, it is open to the second charge holder-appellant herein to realise the balance amount to be appropriated towards the amount to be paid to it. Accordingly, set aside the order passed by the DRT. Being aggrieved by the said order date 26.10.2009 this appeal is filed by the first respondent-KSFC and an application has been filed for production of additional documents. Since there is a delay of three days in filing the appeal, application is also filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

5