1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is the guarantor of a transaction of loan entered into between the respondent Corporation and M/s. Deesa Agro Industries Ltd. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the guarantor and the property of 11-Rudravadan Bunglow, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “property in question”) was by way of equitable mortgage given in collateral security to the transaction of law. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that as the payment was not made of the loan transaction by the principal borrower, the action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act”) was initiated against the petitioner and the property in question. As per the respondent Corporation, the opportunity was also given to the petitioner to pay up the amount, but the amount was also not paid. Therefore, the notice under Section 29 of the Act was issued on 15.02.2000 calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of the loan of Rs.77.34 Lakhs failing which the action under Section 29 of the Act for taking possession and sale of the property. It appears that thereafter,