NILU AGRAWAL, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant was respondent no. 2 in the writ petition filed by Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) being C.W.J.C. No. 25525 of 2013, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 03.11.2014.

3. The Bank had challenged certain orders of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (respondent No. 4) and prayed for the following reliefs :

“That this petition is being filed for the issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.08.2013, passed in M.A. No. 320/2013 by the respondent no. 1 and also the order dated 26.06.2013 passed in M.A. No. 484/2012 which has arisen out of the order dated 13.09.2012, passed in S.A. No. 97/2012 by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna as contained in Annexures 4, 8, 9 of this petition, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the prayers of the petitioners and further directed them to comply the order dated 26.06.2013, passed in M.A. No. 484/2013.”

4. The Bank had assailed the impugned order basically on the ground that the appellant was a loanee of the Bank. A loan of Rs. 3 lakhs was sanctioned in the year 2005, but no substantial amount was deposited by the loanee for more than six years thereafter. The Bank thus, initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given to the appellant, but having not repaid the Bank’s dues, proceeding under Section 13(4) of the Act was initiated by the Bank taking symbolic position of the property in question and thereafter auction sold. The plea taken by the Bank was that the sale of mortgaged asset of the appellant had already been completed way back in the year 2011 and the successful auction purchaser, who is respondent no. 5, had thereafter sold the same to respondent nos. 6 and 7 in the year 2012, as such, a 4th party right had already been created.

5. Against the said auction of the year 2011, the appellant moved the Tribunal in S.A. 97/2012 wherein the Presiding Officer by order dated 13.09.2012 directed the appellant to pay the entire amount within a specified period and also pay 9% interest and 5% penalty on the auction purchase money and Rs. 1 lac as additional compensation to the auction purchaser, if 3rd party is not created (emphasis supplied).

6. It may be noted that already a 4th party right had been created by the auction purchaser by execution of Sale Deed No. 17579 dated 09.06.2012 in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7 much before the order came to be passed in SA 97/2012. Again an opportunity was given to the appellant by the Tribunal under order dated 26.06.2013, passed in M.A. 484/2012 wherein the appellant was again given liberty to pay the entire amount due to the Bank within a specified period, although, it was noticed by the Tribunal in its order dated 26.06.2013, passed in MA 484/2012, which arose out of SA 97/2012 dated 13.09.2012 that 3rd party (purchaser) had already appeared. When the Bank moved before the Tribunal in MA 320/2013 for recall of the order dated 26.06.2013, passed in MA 484/2012 and 13.09.2012, passed in SA 97/12, the Tribunal again rejected the same by order dated 29.08.2013. This is what brought the Bank before this Court by filing writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order dated 03.11.2014, passed in the writ application stating therein that there is violation of Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as the notice for sale of immovable secured assets as per Section 13(4) of the Act and 8(1) of the Rules has not been followed and the possession notice has not been properly affixed. He further submits that there is violation of Rule 8(2) of the Rules also, which vitiates the entire auction proceedings. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou