This is an application to review the order dated 31 August, 2010 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2488 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the applicant.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

2. The applicant availed financial assistance from Canara Bank, Dindigul Main Branch. Since the applicant failed to repay the loan amount, the bank initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. The Tribunal issued a Recovery Certificate on 18 September, 2000. The Recovery Officer, pursuant to the Recovery Certificate, attached the secured asset and put it for sale. The applicant moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal to stay the auction. The Tribunal granted interim stay, subject to the condition that the applicant should deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-and settle the matter with the bank. The applicant duly complied with the condition with regard to deposit. Even then, the property was auctioned on 25 April, 2008. The bid submitted by the third respondent was accepted by the Recovery Officer.

3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed final orders on 18 December, 2008 holding that sale was validly conducted cannot be set aside, but however, on account of the settlement reached with the Bank and payment of more amount by the debtor, much more than the amount fetched in the public auction, the sale will be set aside in case full satisfaction is recorded within 15 days and interest at the rate of 12% on the sale amount is paid to the auction purchaser.

4. The applicant challenged the order dated 18 December, 2008, before this Court in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2488 of 2008. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition with an observation that it was only to enable the applicant herein to save his property, the Recovery Officer has shown concession to pay one time settlement amount of Rs.25,00,000/-and payment of 12 % interest to the auction purchaser.

5. The applicant has come up with this Review Application primarily on the ground that this Court omitted to consider the basic fact that sale was conducted in violation of the stay granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and failed to address the issues raised by him on account of the delay in pronouncing orders.

SUBMISSIONS:

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Civil Revision Petition was filed against the order dated 18 December, 2008 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. The applicant has taken up a specific contention that the sale was made in violation of the interim order dated 31 March, 2008. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the matter was argued on merits and judgment was reserved on 10 November,2009. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, by order dated 31 August, 2010. The learned Judge failed to address the issue raised by the applicant to the effect that the sale was made in violation of the interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as such, the very auction is bad in law. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the applicant settled the matter with the bank and paid the entire one time settlement amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Though the applicant has produced documents to substantiate the subsequent settlement and payment of the entire one time settlement amount, it was not taken note of by the learned Judge, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the property was sold in public auction and the auction purchaser deposited the entire amount. There is no question of settlement thereafter between the creditor and debtor. The learned counsel contended that the bank colluded with the applicant and settled the matter behind the back of auction purchaser. According to the learned counsel, the auction purchaser deposited the entire sale amount and as such, he is entitled to a sale Certificate. It was further contended that none of the grounds raised by the applicant would justify the exercise of review jur