JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.S. Panesar with learned advocate Mr. Maunish T. Pathak for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Pranav G. Desai for the respondent-Bank.

2. Respondent No. 2-original borrower is not served. Learned advocate Mr. Panesar for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the respondent No. 2-borrower as the dispute raised in this petition pertains to the non-acceptance of the forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner in auction held by the respondent-Bank.

3. Permission is granted. Respondent No. 2 is ordered to be deleted.

4. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.

5. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Desai waives service of notice of rule for the sole respondent.

6. The brief facts of the case are as under:

6.1. The respondent No. 2 had availed financial facilities from the respondent No. 1-Bank for securing the due repayment of the said facilities. The Respondent No. 2 had also mortgaged two immovable properties being (1) Residential Flat No. 2/DD/11, Shree Balaji Agora, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Sughad Gandhinagar and (2) Residential Flat No. 2/DD/12, Shree Balaji Agora, Sardar Patel Ring Road, Sughad Gandhinagar.

6.2. It is the case of the petitioner that upon the breach of the sanction terms by the respondent No. 2, in accordance with the RBI Guidelines, the said Accounts were classified as NPA by the respondent No. 1-Bank and measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) in respect to the properties in question were initiated.

6.3. The Respondent No. 1 Bank, on 25th January, 2020 had issued Auction Sale Notice under the SARFAESI Act and invited bids for the auction to be conducted on 26th February, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted bid of Rs. 32.40 Lakhs and also deposited the required EMD amount of Rs. 3.24 Lakh and after extensive bidding, the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for the bid amount of Rs. 42 Lakh. In respect to the same, the respondent No. 1 also sent the letter declaring the petitioner as successful highest bidder as well as asking the petitioner to further deposit Rs. 7.26 Lakhs by 27th February, 2020.

6.4. It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance to the same, the petitioner deposited Rs. 7.26 Lakh immediately and was required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs within 15 days, i.e. by 12th March, 2020.

6.5. The petitioner had applied for Home Loan from State Bank of India and since the required documents were not being supplied to the petitioner, delay occurred in respect to the sanctioning of the Home Loan. Apprehending the said scenario, by email dated 9th March, 2020, the petitioner sought further time for 15 days for the payment of Rs. 31.50 Lakhs. The petitioner was initially granted further time of 15 days and thereafter full extension of 90 days was granted. Therefore, the petitioner had time till 25th May, 2020 for making above payment.

6.6. It is the case of the petitioner that due to Covid-19 pandemic, Lockdown in the entire State of Gujarat from 21st March, 2020 was announced. It is submitted the Government of India announced nationwide lockdown on 25th March, 2020, which lasted till 31st May, 2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 had also passed directions to exclude the Lockdown period for calculating limitation period provided under different statutes. It is the case of the petitioner that the further extension granted by the respondent No. 1, which was otherwise going to expire on 25th May, 2020, would in the above peculiar cir