M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petitions praying for passing of a common order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 in R.A.(SA) No.132 of 2012 on the file of the Fourth Respondent/Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same as illegal and unsustainable one in the eye of law.

Petitioners' Contentions in W.P.Nos.28915 to 28917 of 2014:

2.The Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 in R.A.(SA) No.132 of 2012 passed by the Fourth Respondent/Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in setting aside the dismissal order dated 09.12.2011 made in S.A.No.120 of 2009 and the Auction Sale conducted on 13.08.2004 and the Sale Certificates dated 09.04.2009 are erroneous one, since it was passed without appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.It is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Fourth Respondent/Appellate Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 had caused serious prejudice insofar as the sale in favour of the Petitioners which had become absolute, had been set aside without properly considering the evidence on record, documents and pleadings projected by the parties.

4.According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitioners being the successful auction purchasers, do have right to the property and the said right had become absolute on execution of the sale certificates and delivery of possession of the property under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Also that, the First Respondent/Borrower had lost its 'Right of Redemption' of the property which was the secured assets in the hands of the Second Respondent/Indian Bank.

5.The Learned counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the First Respondent/Borrower had transferred its interest in the property to a third party purchaser, viz., one Ramesh, which fact was admitted in the pleadings of the First Respondent/Borrower before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the Fourth Respondent/Appellate Tribunal should have held that the First Respondent/Borrower does not have any right to challenge the 'Auction Sale' and the so-called third party purchaser is only vested with the 'Equitable Right of Redemption' of the said property.

6.The Learned counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the Fourth Respondent/Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai should have appreciated the fact that the First Respondent/Borrower admitted that it sold the property to a third party after issuance of 'Demand Notice' under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and it only pleaded that the same was an inadvertent error. Further, the so-called purchaser of the subsisting mortgage had initiated numerous proceedings before the Civil Court and the Rent Control Forums.

7.The Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Fourth Respondent/Appellate Tribunal had come to a wrong conclusion that the sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act is in violation of the orders of 'Status Quo' and was conducted without proper publication and therefore, was liable to be set aside.

8.The Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the First Respondent/Borrower had not disputed the availing of credit facilities, creation of mortgage, default in payment of dues, service of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, possession notice and the sale notice dated 09.07.2004 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. As a matter of fact, the property was sold and the said sale was admitted subject to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in S.A.No.15 of 2007. As such, the Fourth Respondent/Appellate Tribunal should have held after the dismissal of the said S.A.No.15 of 2007, the sale which took place earlier stood confirmed and the auction purchasers had derived a right to the property a