The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent viz., the Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in regard to the order dated 10.05.2007 passed in M.A.No.205 of 2006 and M.A.No.206 of 2006 and quash the same and consequently, not to confirm the auction held on 110. 2006 in DRT.No.103 of 1999 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in respect of the schedule mentioned property.

.2. The writ petitioners are the defendants in O.A.No.1774 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent Bank has filed O.A.No.1774 of 1998 against the writ petitioners/defendants for recovering a sum of Rs.20,71,776/-with interest at 19.89% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs and for sale of the plaint schedule property. The writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 were set exparte and an order was passed on 08.04.1999 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai declaring that the first respondent Bank is entitled to the Recovery Certificate against the writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 for a sum of Rs.20,71,776/- till date of application and with 12% simple interest from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs which includes the advocate fees and a Recovery Certificate was ordered to be issued thereto, with a direction to communicate the copy of the order to all the parties.

3. In M.A.Nos.205 and 206 of 2006 filed by the writ petitioners/appellants, a common order was passed on 10.05.2007 by the second respondent viz., the Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing both the appeals. As a matter of fact, M.A.Nos.205 and 206 of 2006 arise out of the common orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai on 110. 2006 in M.A.SR.Nos.1274 and 1277 of 2006 to condone the delay of 1006 days in filing these applications to restore M.A.Nos.338 and 339 of 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai has dismissed M.A.SR.Nos.1274 and 1277 of 2006 on 110. 2006 without costs finding that the writ petitioners/petitioners defendants have not properly explained the delay of 1006 days.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ appellants/defendants urges that the common order of the second respondent viz., Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 10.05.2007 passed in M.A.Nos.205 and 206 of 2006 in dismissing the appeals is against the well established principles of natural justice and that the second respondent viz., Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration of the fact that the property belongs to a senior lady citizen, one of the guarantors and who is ready and willing to settle the matter and that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-deposited with the first respondent Bank by the writ petitioners/defendants does not find a place in the order passed by the second respondent/DRAT on 10.05.2007 and that the facts and circumstances leading to the passing of the exparte decree on 08.04.1999 in O.A.No.1774 of 1998 have not been taken into consideration by the second respondent/DRAT and therefore pray for setting aside the common order passed in M.A.Nos.205 & 206 of 2006 dated 10.05.2007 and to allow the writ petition.

.5. The case of the writ petitioners/appellants/ defendants is that they filed I.A.No.949 of 1999 to set aside the exparte order passed against defendants 1 and 2 and further that I.A.Nos.1063 and 1064 of 1999 were filed to set aside the exparte decree and that the exparte decree was passed on 08.04.1999 in O.A.No.1774 of 1998 and that when the certificate of recovering Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, dated 14.01.2001 was served on the second petitioner to the effect that the property would be brought to public auction on 26th December 2001 at 3.00 p.m. M.A.Nos.338 and 339 of 2002 were filed to condone the delay in filing the petition and to stay the operation, but the