Soumen Sen, J.:-Any person, not being a borrower, if could maintain an appeal without pre-deposit as contemplated under Section 21 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter be referred to as DRT Act, 1993) is the issue to be decided in this application.

2. Before the appellate Tribunal, the petitioner contended that having regard to the nature of the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and the status of the petitioner, there may not be any liability and hence no requirement to make any pre-deposit under Section 21 of the DRT Act, 1993.

3. The said appeal arose against an order dated 13th October, 2009 passed by the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna by which the Presiding Officer, DRT, Patna directed the Recovery Officer to proceed with the auction sale of the property in question along with other attached properties. The said order was passed in connection with the Recovery Certificate issued in favour of the Bank on 3rd September, 2001. Under the certificate, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 were held to be liable jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.1,14,098.99/- up to 30th December, 1992 with cost and all other charges with interest, pendente lite and future interest till realization. On the basis of such certificate, the Recovery Officer registered a case being R.P. Case No.128 of 2001. The Recovery Officer by an order dated 26th December, 2001 attached the immovable properties of the certificate debtors and further steps were taken for public auction of the attached properties. At the stage of sale of one of the properties, the petitioner claiming to be the wife of one of the guarantors, namely, Mr. Ziaul Hoda filed the application for vacating the order of attachment in respect of the said property.

4. Mr. Ziaul Hoda is one of the guarantors and certificate debtors.

5. The petitioner objected to such attachment. She claimed to have purchased one of the attached properties, namely, lot No.11 on the basis of an alleged deed of sale executed on 2nd March, 2000. The said property belonged to one of the borrowers/ certificate debtors, namely, Ariful Hoda who transferred the said property in favour of the petitioner on 2nd March, 2000.

6. The petitioner contended that the said property admittedly belonged to Ariful Hoda who executed the sale deed on 2nd March, 2000 in favour of the petitioner on payment of full consideration amount. The said property was neither mortgaged nor charged in favour of the bank.

7. Ariful Hoda is one of the borrowers and certificate debtors in the said proceeding. The said property was also attached by the Recovery Officer assuming that Ariful Hoda is the owner of the said property on the date of attachment. The petitioner contended that since the said property is neither mortgaged nor charged in favour of the bank and in any event was transferred on nd March, 2000 prior to the issuance of the certificate, no attachment order could be passed in respect of the said property.

8. The Presiding Officer while dealing with the deed of sale dated 2nd March, 2000 held that while the objector was relying on the sale deed dated 2nd March, 2000 and claimed that she had purchased the property, in that event, she should have intervened and objected when the attachment process was continuing. Although the said attachment and auction proceeding started in December, 2001, the petitioner raised the objection only in 2004 without any cogent reason. The petitioner being the wife of one of the guarantors was aware of the pending proceeding and this inter borrower transfer was orchestrated in order to frustrate the certificate. The Presiding Officer also observed that there were inherent infirmities in the deed of sale dated 2nd March, 2000 produced by the objector.

9. The Presiding Officer, accordingly, rejected the said application and directed the Recovery Officer to proceed with the sale of the said attached property along w