G.S. Patel, J.

1. By this Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 8th January 2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 58 of 2013. The present Petitioner was the Appellant before the DRAT. Although Ms. Sethna for the Petitioner says that this is the limited challenge in the Writ Petition, we find that in actuality, there are two other orders that are implicitly under challenge. The first of these is an order dated 22nd November 2012 passed by the Recovery Officer on an application made by the 1st Respondent pursuant to which a certain sale of property, to which we will refer hereafter, in favour of the Petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and was set aside. The second is an order dated 30th January 2013 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in a First Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

2. We have heard Ms. Sethna for the Petitioner and Mr. Cooper for the 1st Respondent, the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (“ARCIL”), at considerable length. The record before us includes the Petition in two volumes, running to a