M. GOVINDARAJ, J.

Challenging the order dated 29.04.2012 passed by the first respondent in I.A.Nos.654/13 and 655/13 in R.P. No. 47/2008 in DRC No. 47/2008 and the sale certificate dated 18.03.2009, registered as Document No. 1557 of 2009, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Pollachi, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The second respondent Bank has filed an application in O.A.No.323 of 2004, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs.28,18,604.45, for the loan facilities availed by M/s. Etiland Products Private Limited/ third respondent, in which, the petitioner was one of the Directors. On 07.06.2007, an exparte decree came to be passed. The petitioner could receive the exparte decree, only after filing an application on 06.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application was numbered as I.A.No.823 of 2008 in No. 244 of 2008 and the same was dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. During the pendency of the condone delay petition, the second respondent Bank sold the property.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in I.A.No.823 of 2008, before this Court, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.6571 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 17.04.2009, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs, pending disposal of the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the second respondent Bank had informed that the respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the present writ petition were the auction purchasers of the property. Therefore, the above said private respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 were also impleaded as parties. After hearing the parties, this Court set aside the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in I.A.No.823 of 2008 and directed the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to number the appeal and further directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the property, till the disposal of the appeal, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

4. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal had taken up the appeal on file in R.A.No.112 of 2010 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was given to understand that there were certain infirmities in the auction conducted by the second respondent Bank. Only after obtaining the certified copies, he came to know that the sale of the subject property was conducted without following the procedures. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.654 of 2013 in R.P.No.47 of 2008 seeking to set aside the sale certificate issued in favour of the respondents 5 to 8.

5. The petitioner further states that originally one Vijayalakshmi was found to be the bidder and respondents 5 to 8 were interpolated in the bid. The sale proceedings extract would reveal that the tender application was submitted by only Ms. Vijayalakshmi and R.Sadiqullah, wherein, the names of respondents 5, 7 and 8 were not at all found. From the sale proceedings extract, it could be noted that only one tender was received and an unsigned certificate of sale dated Nil March 2009 reflects the names of Ms. Vijayalakshmi and R.Sadiqullah alone. Subsequently, the sale certificate dated 18.03.2009 was registered as Document No. 1557 of 2009 and names of respondents 6 to 8 have been shown. The entire event clearly indicates the collusion between the respondents 1 and 2 and respondents 5 to 8 in conducting the auction. According to the petitioner, he is still in possession of the property and the respondents have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and it was stalled by the petitioner.

6. Respondents 5 to 8 have filed a suit in O.S.No.485 of 2010 along with an application in I.A.No.1405 of 2010 for injunction before the District Munsif, Pollachi. However, the District Munsif, Pollachi, having found that both the parties to the suit claimed that they are in possessi