1. The appellant was original respondent no.1 in Special Civil Application No.1424/2009. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged a judgement and order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge in the petition filed by respondent no.1 herein.

2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

2.1 Respondent no.1 was one of the Directors of M/s. R.K. Taneja Fashion Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. Said company had availed of loan for cash credit facility from the present appellant-Bank of Baroda by mortgaging besides other properties, property of the original petitioner being immovable property situated at Buland Shahar, Uttar Pradesh(here-in-after referred to as the suit property ).

2.2 Since the loan availed of by the company was not repaid, the appellant bank filed Original Application No. 31/1996 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 25.1.1996 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,37,83,441/- with interest.

2.3 Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad passed a decree on 18.4.2006 in favour of appellant bank. In the petition, original petitioner i.e. present respondent no.1 has stated that he was not aware whether his brother who was residing at Ahmedabad had defended the matter or not or any steps were taken or not. He had further stated that from the record it is clear that case was not properly presented and his advocate did not remain present. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the original petitioner that he was not served with the notice of the said proceedings by Debts Recovery Tribunal.

2.4 It is not in dispute that petitioner has not challenged the said decree. In terms of the decree, a Recovery Certificate came to be issued on 11.5.2006 bearing Certificate No.149/2006. Same was forwarded for execution to the Recovery Officer on or around 13.7.2007.

2.5 In the recovery proceedings, the original petitioner appeared before the Recovery Officer and filed his objections vide exh.T/19. It is the case of the petitioner that despite his objections, Recovery Officer permitted further auction of his immovable property at Buland Shahar. However, in auction proposed on 5.12.2008, no offer was received. The auction was therefore, declared unsuccessful. One Shri Ravindra Goyal, made an offer for purchasing the suit property for a sum of Rs. 36 lakhs. Recovery Officer thereupon held an auction in the chamber on 27.1.2009 and issued a sale proclamation notice in which it was stated that if no offer is received, then offer of the third party will be accepted.

2.6 Before the Recovery Officer on behalf of the petitioner, written objections came to be filed on 27.1.2009 contending inter-alia that the authority has no territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the property situated at Buland Shahar. It was therefore, prayed that auction may be deferred till the appeal which he has filed before the tribunal is disposed of.

2.7 On 27.1.2009 itself the recovery officer passed two separate orders in the said proceedings. Objections raised by the petitioner came to be rejected by first order on 27.1.2009. After passing this order, proceedings were adjourned for public auction in the second session.

2.8 In the second session on 27.1.2009, the Recovery Officer passed further order accepting the offer of Shri Ravindra Goyal for purchase of property of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 36.36 lakhs. The offerer had already deposited Rs.9 lakhs previously. He was given one day to deposit the shortfall of 25% of the final bid amount. He was given further 15 days for paying up the rest of the amount. It is not in dispute that such amounts have been duly deposited. From the affidavit in reply filed by the bank before the Learned Single Judge, it becomes clear that though the auction has been completed, sale has not yet been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. These orders dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Recovery Officer came to be challenged by the original petitioner before t