Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the Bank as also learned counsel for the impleaded respondents at length and with their consent, we are disposing of both the appeals at this stage itself. Both the appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.2.2017 passed in O.P.(DRT) Nos. 122 of 2016 and 123 of 2016, whereby, while dismissing the said Original Petitions, learned Single Judge granted time till 3.3.2017 to the petitioners/appellants to pay the complete dues. Let it be noted that upon the Writ Appeals being filed, by various interim orders, this Court restrained the parties from registering the sale certificate, which had been confirmed on 4.3.2017 by the Bank, after the date fixed by the learned Single Judge expired without full payment. We may also note that the Bank has received complete payment from the appellants of the dues along with interest as also the appellants have deposited interest to be paid to the auction purchasers upto 3.3.2017. Since the Bank dues having been liquidated and the certificate of sale not having been registered, we set aside the sale and direct to refund the money as deposited by the purchasers with interest already deposited by the appellants. Any further demand of interest for the period after 3.3.2017 would be worked out between the parties. The reasons for this are as follows:-

2. It appears that the appellants had taken substantial financial accommodation from the respondent, Syndicate Bank. There were admittedly dues. SARFAESI proceedings were resorted to and the properties were noticed for auction sale. The properties were in fact sold to the impleaded respondents being additional respondents 3 to 5 in both the appeals. The property was auctioned on 28.3.2016 for a value of about Rs.4.70 Crores. Subsequently, the Bank confirmed the sale. The matter being before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (the Tribunal' for short), Ernakulam. The appellants moved various applications including seeking time to pay off the entire dues and consequently, if so permitted, to withdraw the challenge to the same. Various applications were filed before the Tribunal, but, the net result was that the appellants did not pay the entire dues and the Tribunal dismissed the applications. It is this that brought the appellants to this Court in the said writ proceedings. Learned Single Judge heard the matter and was not impressed upon the conduct of the petitioners/appellants. He, accordingly, dismissed the Original Petitions by common judgment dated 10.2.2017, but, while doing so, granted one opportunity to the petitioners to pay off the entire dues by 3.3.2017. The petitioners did not pay off the entire dues by 3.3.2017. Accordingly, on 4.3.2017 the Bank confirmed the sale.

3. Let it be noted that the auction purchasers did not object to the order of the Tribunal. It had granted liberty to the appellants to pay and redeem the mortgage even though the auction purchasers had paid the full amount that was required under the auction sale. The auction purchasers were also aware of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but, they did not choose to object the same. We hold so because the auction purchasers, in whose favour the sale certificate had to be issued, were not being allowed to register the sale certificate. However, once the learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petitions, the present appeals were filed, this Court stayed the registration of sale certificate, as in the mean time, the Bank had already confirmed the sale on failure of the appellants discharging the dues. This Court then passed various interim orders including orders for impleading the auction purchasers. They were duly impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. Pursuant to various orders passed by this Court, the appellants deposited interest dues and other dues, totalling to about Rs.6.10 Crores, which the