JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard on application filed by applicant-Rameshwar Prasad Sharma in D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 13/2019, seeking leave of the Court to file appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and leave is granted to the applicant-Rameshwar Prasad Sharma to file appeal.

3. There is delay of 250 days in filing of D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 13/2019.

4. In view of the fact that D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No. 22/2018 has been filed against order dated 08.08.2018, which is also under challenge in Appeal No. 13/2019, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay.

5. Accordingly, delay in filing of Appeal No. 13/2019 is condoned and application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Appeal No. 13/2019 is allowed.

6. By this common judgment, both the appeals are being disposed off as they arise out of the same order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1003/2018.

7. Respondents-writ petitioners Nand Kishore Gupta and Mrs. Usha Khandelwal had borrowed loan from appellant-Bank of Maharashtra. They were served with notice under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) against which they preferred an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) wherein notices were issued and the next date fixed was 02.02.2018. While regular sitting and hearing of the DRT was not taking place, the Bank issued advertisement for auction of the property on 30.01.2018, which was prior to the next date of hearing before the DRT. In such circumstances, the respondents-writ petitioners Nand Kishore Gupta and Mrs. Usha Khandelwal filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2033/2018 seeking protective umbrella and praying for quashing of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act as also possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Sale notice was also challenged and prayer was made for quashing the same. Other ancillary reliefs were also sought in the writ petition. The writ petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 25.01.2018 with certain directions.

8. However, despite there being an order of protection, the sale was confirmed and delivery of possession had also taken place, which led to filing of contempt petition (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1003/2018) against the appellants-bank officials (in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No. 22/2018). After notice, reply was filed and the allegation of willful disobedience of the order of the Court was denied mainly on the plea and defence that order dated 25.01.2018 passed in writ petition related to a notice for auction of writ petitioners’ property under the SARFAESI Act on 30.01.2018, which was, however, abandoned and thereafter, a fresh notice was issued for holding auction on 28.02.2018, which was brought to its logical conclusion. It was also pleaded that order of the Court passed on 25.01.2018 protected the writ petitioners till hearing of the stay application. The case was taken up by the DRT on subsequent dates of hearing, but no interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioners. Therefore, the officials proceeded with the auction, which was scheduled on 28.02.2018, which eventually led to confirmation of auction sale on 26.04.2018.

9. However, learned Single Judge, while hearing contempt petition, was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the contemnors and it was held that order dated 25.01.2018 was willfully disobeyed and the contemnors, fully aware of the nature and scope of order dated 25.01.2018, flouted the same. Learned Single Judge accordingly held the contemnors guilty of contempt of the Court. Learned Single Judge also held that as the confirmation of sale on 26.04.2018 and issuance of sale certificate were in violation of