K.K. Sasidharan, J—The apprehension that the proceedings challenging the Sale Certificate would be decided in the absence of the auction purchasers appears to be the reason which made the petitioner to file this Civil Revision Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Brief facts:

2. The first respondent availed financial assistance from the Vadapalani Branch of Indian Bank. Since the loan amount was not paid as per schedule and the account was found non performing, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). The property bearing Plot No.5, Varghese Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai which was offered as security was put in auction. The petitioner along with respondents 2 to 4 purchased the property pursuant to the sale notification. The SARFAESI Application filed by the first respondent along with three others, was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”). The related appeal was allowed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”) . The writ petition filed against the order passed by the DRAT was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.292 of 2013. The review petition to review the order in W.P.No.292 of 2013 was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter the first respondent filed a SARFAESI application before the DRT, Chennai to set aside the sale certificate. The application was dismissed as not maintainable. The said order was challenged before the DRAT. The DRAT entertained the appeal and granted an order of interim stay. It is the said order which is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

The contentions in the Counter Affidavit:

3. The first respondent through its partner filed a counter affidavit wherein it was contended that the validity of the sale certificate was not an issue in W.P.No.292 of 2013. The Court was concerned only with the application filed for amendment of the petition to challenge the sale proceedings. The Division Bench was pleased to observe that the proper remedy was only to challenge the sale specifically by filing an independent SARFAESI application. The present application before the DRT was therefore in accordance with law.

Submissions of parties:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though caveat was lodged, reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner to oppose the appeal. According to the learned counsel, the names of auction purchasers were deleted from the array of parties and thereafter only the appeal was entertained. To a query from the Court, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to take part in the appellate proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent while supporting the impugned order submitted that the auction purchasers are still parties to the proceedings before the DRAT. According to the learned counsel, the order in question was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4. The contra statement is now made only to make out a case in the Civil Revision Petition.

6. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Bank.

Analysis:

7. The fifth respondent (hereinafter referred to as “Bank”) initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the first respondent. The sale notice issued by the Bank dated 25 August 2009 was challenged by the first respondent and three others (hereinafter referred to as “borrowers”) in S.A.No.101 of 2009 before the DRT, Chennai. During the currency of the SARFAESI application, the secured asset was sold in auction. The borrowers therefore filed an application in I.A.No.279 of 2010 for amendment of SARFAESI application for the purpose of challenging the auction sale. The borrowers filed another app