M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Review Application being aggrieved against the order dated 03.02.2015 in W.P.No.31904 of 2014 passed by this Court.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that this Court should have seen that the sale proclamation was assailed by the Petitioner in I.A.No.91 of 2011 and the same was not considered by the Recovery Officer and the Tribunals in a proper fashion.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that this Court ought to have seen that if the Petitioner had participated in the auction, then, he would have to give up his 'Right of Redemption'. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that this Court should have seen that the action of the 2nd Respondent/Bank in not impleading the father of the Petitioner in the Original Proceedings had curtailed the Right of Redemption.

4. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that I.A.No.91 of 2011 was filed challenging the proclamation of sale and as such, the remedy available to the Petitioner is only under Rule 11 and not under Rules 60 and 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the remedy under Rule 6