1. - The dispute in the present case is between the M/s S.S. Overseas (India), respondent No.5 and the Syndicate Bank, respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, M/s S.S. Overseas, respondent No.5 borrowed certain loan amount from the said Bank. However, the respondent No.5 was unable to repay the loan amount to the Bank. Therefore, the Bank started the recovery proceeding. Smt. Suryakanta Jain, respondent No.4 as the guarantor had mortgaged her house, Plot No.D-16 with the Bank, she had submitted the property papers of the said house with the Bank. The Bank wanted to auction the House No.D-16. But the house in which the petitioners are residing, namely House No.D-17, is connected with House No.D-16. Therefore, they filed their objections and claimed preferential right over House No.D-16. But in order to recover its money, the Bank decided to publicly auction the said house. Initially, the auction was stayed by the Recovery Officer of the DRT. But subsequently, vide order dated 21.03.2005, the DRT allowed the auction of the said house. While allowing the auction an option was given to the petitioner to deposit Rs.5 lacs. The petitioners exercised the said option and deposited Rs.5 lacs by two separate demand drafts of Rs.2.5 lacs each. However, despite depositing the said amount, the sale was not confirmed in the name of the petitioners. Meanwhile, the Bank preferred an appeal against the order of DRT and vide order dated 01.07.2005 the appeal was allowed and the private sale of the said house to the petitioners was set aside. Vide order dated 01.07.2005, the public auction of the said house was permitted. According to respondent No.3, Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, he is the highest auction purchaser of the said house in the said public auction. However, the said sale is yet to be confirmed.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition admittedly respondent No.5, M/s S.S. Overseas (India) has paid the entire loan amount to the Bank. This is clear from the affidavit filed by Mr. Mukund Chand Mundra, the Senior Manager of Syndicate Bank, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Therefore, the controversy between the Bank and respondent No.5 has ended peacefully. The only matter which now needs to be decided are all the reliefs the parties are entitled to.

3. Since the entire amount has been paid, since the controversy no longer survives between the Bank and respondent No.5, hence, this Court passes the following directions:-

(1). It is the case of the petitioner that initially, they had submitted two demand drafts of Rs.2.5 lacs each, and subsequently, they have submitted one cheque of Rs.5,51,000/- on dated 21.09.2005 before the DRT Jaipur. In the light of the fact mentioned above, the respondent No.2 the DRT is directed to return the two demand drafts and the cheque along with the interest to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(2) Since the respondent No.4 had submitted her property papers to the Bank, the Bank is directed to return the said property papers to her, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(3) Since the auction held by the Bank has never been finalised, since Rs.10,01,000/- were deposited by respondent No.3, and are kept in a fixed deposit, the same shall be returned to respondent No.3 along with the interest so earned in the fixed deposit within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

(4) Lastly, the Bank is directed to return all the property papers that are lying with the Bank to the respective parties who had deposited those property papers with the Bank, for securing the loan amount. The said papers shall also be returned within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

4. With these observation, this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed of as above

*******