SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The Oriental Bank of Commerce/respondent No. 1 advanced a loan facility to M/s. Mohit Distributors. Flat No. 115, Sector 55, Palsora, Chandigarh allotted to Smt. Anita Garg by the Chandigarh Housing Board/respondent No. 2 is stated to have been given as security by way of equitable mortgage to respondent No. 1 bank. M/s. Mohit Distributors is alleged not to have paid the outstanding dues resulting in legal proceedings for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,61,940/- alongwith pendelite and future interest @ 15% per annum being instituted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. These proceedings resulted into a decree on 20.10.2003 in O.A. No. 623 of 2003 and the recovery certificate was issued on 20.10.2003.

2. It appears that this decree was exparte and an endeavour is made by M/s. Mohit Distributors for seeking setting aside of the exparte decree, but there was non-compliance of the condition for doing so. In order to realize its dues, the flat was put up for auction by inviting sealed tenders on as is where is basis. The reserve price fixed at Rs. 21,14,000/- with earnest money being 5% of the reserve price was required to be submitted by 25.07.2006 and the sealed tenders were to be opened on 26.07.2006 on which date auction would be conducted amongst the bidders. Other than the terms and conditions as to how the auction would proceed there were two material terms which read as under:-

"(7) All the outstanding dues/taxes will be borne by the purchaser.

(8) Other terms and conditions will be notified at the time of opening of the bids."

3. The petitioner was one of the participants and was the successful bidder at a price of Rs. 25.85 lacs. The entire amount was paid by the petitioner to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the sale is stated to have been confirmed on 22.01.2007.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was facing some difficulties at the instance of respondent No. 2 and on 24.08.2006 had inquired in writing from the said respondent the details of the balance, if any, qua the property, but respondent No. 2 on 05.09.2006 refused to divulge information on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the property as per records of respondent No. 2 board. The petitioner claimed that subsequently he came to know that there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,95,331/- alongwith interest w.e.f. 2005 amounting to Rs. 6.76 lacs upto 31.01.2010 with further interest beyond that date @ 20% per annum.

5. The aforesaid situation led to the petitioner filing objections before the Recovery Officer. The petitioner sought relief against the bank for not appropriating the amount without giving possession of the property as the petitioner was of the view that fraud had been played on him. The factum of there being any liability of the purchaser qua the outstanding dues of any type either of respondent No. 2 board or otherwise was alleged not to have been highlighted either in the advertisement/publication or thereafter in any communication and even at the time of the bid. The schedule of the property attached to the proclamation of sale was also alleged to have been left blank. However, these objections were dismissed vide order dated 25.05.2007 to 28.05.2007 primarily on the ground that the sale was on 'as is where is basis'. The amounts were, thus, appropriated by the bank, but despite this, possession is stated to have been handed over much later only on 18.07.2007. The further challenge by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal also failed when the appeal was dismissed on 26.03.2010 and same was the fate before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 15.06.2010. The petitioner, thus, filed CWP No. 13006 of 2010 raising various grounds. However, the petitioner once again did not succeed as recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2010. The learned Single Judge found no ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdict