By the Court.—We have heard Shri S.K. Misra holding brief of Shri Mukesh Singh for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Singh appears for the Union Bank of India and represents respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, are that the petitioner’s husband late Shri Anand Kumar Pathak availed Cash Credit facility of Rs. 19 lacs as well as housing loan of Rs. 20 lacs, from the respondent bank sometimes in the year 2006. He could not pay the installments in time on which the bank issued notices under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002) dated 16.8.2010 for realising outstanding dues of Rs. 23,18,110.24 paisa in Housing loan account by securitising the security interest in the mortgaged property. (Land and Building: House in Village Sukhipur, Tehsil Sadar Jaunpur in the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi, wife of Late Shri Anand Kumar Pathak); and Rs. 21,50,696.68 paisa in C.C. (H) (Housing Loan Account) by securitising the security interest in mortgaged properties (Land and Building; House No. 21, Moh. Kaseri Bazar, Tehsil Sadar, Jaunpur).

3. The petitioner’s husband filed the first Writ Petition No. 35276 of 2008, Anand Kumar Pathak v. Manager, Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Jaunpur and others and Writ Petition No. 35943 of 2008 in which a statement was given by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to clear the entire outstanding dues, if some easy installments are fixed and to show its bona fides the petitioner offered to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- in each case within a month. On this statement the Court by its order dated 23.7.2008 disposed of the writ petitions with directions that the bank will permit the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- by 23.8.2008 and to clear the remaining amount alongwith interest in four equal quarterly installments. The Court fixed four installments in which fourth installment was to include the upto date interest, and stayed recoveries upto 23.8.2009, upto the payment of the fourth and last installments. It was made clear that in the event of failure of deposit of any of the amount or installments, the bank would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The Court also made it clear that it has not adjudicated the claim on merits.

4. The petitioner did not deposit the installment in time, on which the bank proceeded to sell the property by auction.

5. The petitioner filed a second Writ Petition No. 20305 of 2010, Anand Kumar Pathak and others v. State of U.P. and others, in which statement was given by learned counsel appearing for the bank that the sale had taken place but was not confirmed nor the sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser. This Court once again considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed an order on 19.4.2010, of which the operative portion is quoted as below :

“We have heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Rakesh Mishra learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who pray for and are allowed a month’s time to file counter-affidavit. Sri Anil Tiwari learned counsel has put in appearance for auction purchaser. He may also file counter-affidavit alongwith impleadment application within the same period. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners within next three weeks.

List thereafter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed an amendment application. The amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall incorporate amendment prayed for during the course of day.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the auction of the property had taken place on 31.3.2010. The auction purchaser did not deposit 25% of the amount wh