JUDGMENT :

S. N. PRASAD, J.

1. The auction sale dated 11.2.2015 under Annexure-2 initiated in exercise of power conferred under section 13(12) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is under challenge.

2. This Court while issuing notices to the opposite parties vide order dated 26.2.2015 has passed the following order:

“Heard.

Issue notice to the opposite parties by registered post with A.D. making it returnable within four weeks.

Requisites shall be filed by 03.03.2015.

List this matter after four weeks.

As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner nor the petitioner shall be dispossessed from the property in question till the next date subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) with the Registry of this Court within two weeks. However, the action pursuant to the sale notice under Annexure-2 in respect of Lot no.2 may be held but the sale shall not be confirmed without leave of this Court.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application after filing requisites.”

3. The opposite parties 7 (the auction purchaser) and 8 had appeared. This Court vide order dated 27.9.2016 has passed the following order:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

List this matter on 18.10.2016.

In the interim, we direct opposite party no.7 not to change the nature and character of the land in question nor create any 3rd party interest till the next date.

Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.”

Opposite party no.7 has been represented by his counsel on each and every dates. He has also filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein the entire facts that he has been declared to be successful bidder by virtue of his highest bid.

4. We have gathered from the record that the opposite party no.7 has not challenged the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by this Court in the instant writ petition before higher forum or even not filed any review/recall application for recalling of the said order which suggest that the order passed by this Court dated 26.2.2015 has been accepted by the opposite party no.7.

It is further evident from the record that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dated 26.2.2015 the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs before the Registry of this Court and further deposited substantial amount before the Bank which has been accepted by it, as has been informed by learned counsel appearing for the bank, which further goes to suggests that even the bank is not aggrieved with the order dated 26.2.2015. This factual aspect suggests that the order dated 26.2.2015 has attained its finality and also acted upon by the parties.

5. Today when the case has been called out none appears for the opposite party no.7 to present his case although name of the learned counsel representing him is being displayed in the daily cause list even prayer for adjournment has not been made on his behalf, furthermore on previous dates he was being represented by his counsel.

The case was listed on 27.9.2016, opposite party no.7 was directed not to change the nature and character of the land in question nor create any third party interest till the next date and thereafter the case was listed on 23.11.2016 which was adjourned to be listed on 30.11.2016, on that date, learned counsel representing opposite party nos.7 and 8 has prayed to adjourn the case to seek instruction as well as learned counsel representing the opposite party-bank who also intends to seek instruction in the meanwhile. Accordingly, the case was directed to be listed on 7.12.2016, the case was taken up on 8.12.2016 and thereafter the case was adjourned time and again on the prayer being made by learned counsel for the parties.

The case was listed on 3.3.2017, on that date learned counsel for the bank has been directed to produce the calculation sheet with regard to the balance of amount which is to be adjusted tow