JUDGMENT :

VINEET KOTHARI, J.

1. The present set of three Intra Court Appeals are directed against the common Judgement and Order of learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) dated 27.1.2010 whereby the Special Civil Application No.2057 of 2000 [Neetaben U.Chokshi vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation (GSFC) and Ors.] came to be partly allowed.

2. Ms. Neetaben U. Chokshi was a Guarantor/Surety for the borrower M/s. Disha Agro Industries Ltd., who had taken loan from GSFC and she mortgaged her Residential Bungalow situated at 11, Rudravadan Bungalows, Near Rozi School, Sun and Step Club Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad, by way of collateral security with the GSFC as the Guarantor. The borrower Company M/s. Disha Agro Industries defaulted in repayment of loan to GSFC and therefore, legal action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short “the SFC Act) was initiated against the Petitioner/Surety on 15.2.2000 calling upon her to pay the outstanding amount of the said loan to the extent of Rs.77.34 lakhs.

3. It appears that without proceeding against the mortgaged assets of the borrower Company itself, the GSFC directly proceeded under Section 29 of the Act against the aforesaid Residential Bungalow of the Petitioner/Surety and took over the possession of the same under Section 29 of the SFC Act on 24.1.2001 (vide Annexure R-10 Certificate of GSFC dated 22.3.2005) and sold the said property to the Respondent - Purshottambhai Mafatlal Patel for a sum of Rs.20.25 lakhs on 22.2.2005 and possession of the said bungalow was handed over to the Auction Purchaser on 17.3.2005 and the Sale Deed was also executed and registered on 3.5.2005.

4. The Writ Petition was filed by Petitioner challenging such impugned action and the Petition was also amended and the said Auction Purchaser was also impleaded in the Writ Petition and prayer for setting aside the Sale Deed executed in his favour was also added. The Petition came to be partly allowed by learned Single Judge as stated above.

5. The case before us in the present three Intra Court Appeals is interesting in the sense that all the three concerned parties have appealed against the same Order of learned Single Judge, the Petitioner/Appellant/Surety, the Auction Purchaser – Purshottam M. Patel and GSFC itself. Thus, none of these parties to the lis was satisfied with the Order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. The reason for the same appears to be that, while holding that the action of the GSFC to sell the residential house of the Petitioner/Appellant/Surety – Neetaben U. Chokshi was not in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors. [(2008) 5 SCC 176] in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the action under Section 29 of the SFC Act cannot be taken against the mortgaged property of the Guarantor/Surety, but it can be taken only against the mortgaged assets of the borrower, but instead of setting aside the sale made in favour of the Respondent – Purshottam M. Patel, (now represented by his Legal Representative after his death on 3.1.2021 and who were allowed to represent vide Order passed today in Civil Application No.1 of 2021) as a consequential relief, the learned Single Judge made such setting aside of sale and the restoration of the possession of the residential house in question to the Petitioner/Appellant only subject to the condition of her depositing a sum of Rs.38.25 lakhs.

The said amount of Rs.38.25 lakhs was to comprise of:-

(i) Rs.20.25 lakhs paid by the Auction Purchaser + (ii) Rs.11 lakhs spent by purchaser Purshottam M. Patel on renovation of the house and (iii) Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to be paid by GSFC to the auction purchaser for return of possession in consequence of setting aside of the sale.

7. The learned Single Judge besides the aforesaid direction proceeded to hold in the Order impugned before us that even after such conditiona