ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. All the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 85 of 1979 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 85 of 1979 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai and obtained a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,75,806/- with interest at 20% from the date of plaint. The said suit was decreed as prayed for by a judgment and decree dated 10.01.1986. The revision petitioner thereafter filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the property namely land and building and premises with all fixtures and fittings, machineries, electrical installations, etc., belongs to the judgment debtor, M/s. Rukmani Mills. It appears that the property of the respondent namely the entire mill premises were also attached and the Court also drew sale proclamation by fixing the upset price at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 504 of 2006 in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 in O.S. No. 85 of 1979 to reduce the upset price from One crore to Forty lakhs.

3. The revision petitioner filed another application in the execution petition in E.A. No. 505 of 2006 in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 to grant permission to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to bid in the auction and adjust the decree amount. The first respondent in C.R.P.(MD) No. 884 of 2015 is a third party to the suit and execution proceedings. In C.R.P. (MD) No. 884 of 2015, M/s. Rukmini Mills is the second respondent. In all other Civil Revision Petitions, M/s. Rukmini Mills is the sole respondent. The first respondent in C.R.P.(MD) No. 884 of 2015 filed E.A. No. 372 of 2012 in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 in O.S. No. 85 of 1979 for the following reliefs :

(a) to adjudicate that the petitioner bank alone, as a secured creditor, is entitled to bring the schedule mentioned property for sale and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the loan account of the second respondent;

(b) To adjudicate that the first respondent being a money decree holder is entitled to proceed only against the remaining sale proceeds which are available after adjusting towards the loan account of the second respondent;

(c) To release the schedule mentioned property from the attachment effected by this Hon'ble Court in the above execution petition;

(d) to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent from bringing the schedule mentioned property for sale through Court auction till the disposal of the claim petition;

(e) To pass an order staying all the proceedings of the above execution petition in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 till the disposal of the claim petition;

(f) directing the contesting respondents to pay the cost of this petition.

4. The first respondent in C.R.P.(MD) No. 884 of 2015 is a nationalised bank which granted credit facilities to M/s. Rukmani Mills in the year 1980. It is admitted by the second respondent in C.R.P. (MD) No. 884 of 2015, namely, M/s. Rukmini Mills, that they created equitable mortgage on 18.08.1980 over the petition mentioned property by way of deposit of title deeds with the bank. The equitable mortgage appears to have been extended for additional credit facilities granted to M/s. Rukmani Mills from time to time. Since the mill has committed default in repaying the loan amount, it is stated by the bank that they initiated legal proceedings under SARFAESI Act against M/s. Rukmani Mills and took possession of the entire mill which is the subject matter of execution proceedings in E.P. No. 121 of 1986 on 15.10.2008. The bank has also filed original application in O.A. No. 11 of 2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and it is pending. The movable properties like machineries and other hypothecated goods were sold on 23.12.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1.05 Crores. It is stated that M/s. Rukmani Mills has to pay still a sum of Rs. 45.43 Crores as on 31.03.2012. It is furt