The main legal point established is that failure to challenge previous actions of a bank, such as the sale of property, can impact the ability to challenge subsequent orders.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur dated 9-10-2015 under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity) permitting the respondent No. 2 Bank to secure the actual possession of the property from the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is one of the co-borrowers who had obtained cash credit facility from the respondent No. 2 Bank to the extent of Rs. 2,75,000/-. Since the petitioner defaulted in repaying the loan amount, the respondent No. 2 Bank issued a notice under section 13(2) of the Act on 17-9-2009. The symbolic possession of the property that was mortgaged by a registered mortgage deed by the petitioner with the respondent No. 2 Bank was secured by the Bank immediately thereafter, in terms of the provisions of section 13(4) of the Act. After securing the symbolic possession, the Bank decided to sell the property by a public auction. An auction notice was published but since the Bank did not secure purchasers for the said property, the respondent No. 2 Bank decided to sell the same by private treaty, as permissible under the Act. A notice was issued by the respondent No. 2 Bank to the petitioner on 26-7-2011 asking the petitioner to repay the amount within a period of 30 days or else the property would be sold by private treaty. Since the petitioner did not comply with the letter - notice dated 26-7-2011, the Bank sold the property to the respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- on 22-8-2011. The petitioner did not challenge the action of the respondent Bank of selling the property by private treaty. The petitioner again approached the Bank in the year 2014 with an offer to repay the amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank accepted an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- from the petitioner towards the dues and returned the original documents in respect of title to the petitioner. The said fact is, however, disputed by the respondent Bank as it is the case of the respondent Bank that the new Branch Manager was oblivious of the transaction that took place in the year 2011, when the property stood transferred in terms of the private treaty and the loan account was also closed. Since the respondent No. 4 was not delivered with the possession of the property, the Bank filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur under section 14 of the Act. In the said proceedings, the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the Additional District Magistrate, and by the impugned order, the Additional District Magistrate, permitted the Bank to secure the actual possession of the property. The order of the Additional District Magistrate is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. Shri Kshirsagar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Additional District Magistrate suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Bank entered into a compromise with the petitioner in 2014 and accepted the amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- towards full and final settlement. It is stated that the original documents of title were also returned to the petitioner and the dues that were liable to be paid in view of the notice under section 13(2) of the Act were cleared by the petitioner. It is stated that since an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was paid in terms of the compromise, if at all the Bank was desirous of wriggling out of the said transaction, the Bank ought to have reissued a notice to the petitioner under section 13(2) of the Act. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 had claimed that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the said respondent before the proceedings were initiated under section 13 of the Act by the Bank and even before the initiation of the said proceedings, the respondent No. 4 had filed a civil suit for specific per