By the Court.—The first respondent had extended credit facility to a borrower by the name of M/s. Ram Charan Edibles. The borrower committed a default in the payment of the outstanding dues. Following this, the bank took recourse to the measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Act.

2. The bank took physical possession of certain immovable properties which were mortgaged in its favour which are described in the sale certificate that was eventually issued in favour of the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser, as follow:

“Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, Sale deed 2764 dt. 11.8.79; Boundary-Kanhaiyalal Ke Bedari Ke uttar me. Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor; Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, Sale deed 2762 dt. 11.7.79. Boundary Kishan Lal ke Bedari ke uttar me.

Land & Building Arazi No. 316, MI 1 Biswa 11-12 Dhoor Mauza Sonkhari, Gopiganj Tehsil -Gyanpur, sale deed 2763 dt. 11.7.79. Boundary Sai Mubbaiya Janib South. Plot at Arazi 55 MI 3 Biswa 13.75 Dhoor, Mauza Pure Gulab, Gopiganj, Tehsil Gyanpur Sale Deed 590 dt. 1.1.91 Boundary North-Bag Bedran Majkur, South-Kabristan; East-Land of Bateshwar Prasad; West-Ahata Sukhiya Devi & Bansi Devi, Shai bedaran Majkur ke bagh se sata Hua Janib Dakshin ke taraf hai. Plot Arazi 55 MI 4 Biswa 18.75 Dhoor Mzuza Pure Gulab, Gopiganj Tehsil-Gyanpur sale deed 673 dt. 25.1.91 Boundary-North-Bagh Mahajan Majkur, South Kabristan East-Part of Arazi Majkur’s share West-Land of Kanhaiya Lal etc.”

3. The first respondent issued an auction notice on 13 November 2013 in the newspapers. The petitioner participated in the auction which was held on 13 December 2013 and submitted the highest bid of Rs. 68.10 lacs. The bid was accepted and the petitioner deposited the complete amount payable within the time stipulated which was duly accepted by the bank. A sale certificate was issued by the bank in favour of the petitioner on 31 December 2013 recording the sale of the properties described earlier, free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor. In pursuance of the sale certificate, a sale deed was executed by the bank in favour of the petitioner on 21 May 2014. The sale deed has been registered. On 22 May 2014, a joint possession memo was executed by the petitioner and the representatives of the bank which recorded that the petitioner had taken possession of certain movable property which would remain in his custody subject to the directions of the bank.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on 26 May 2014, the sixth to eighth respondents, who were mortgagors of the immovable property, entered upon the premises and damaged the movable property lying therein. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Sant Ravi Das Nagar on 27 May 2014. The District Magistrate by his endorsement on the complaint directed the Station House Officer, Gopiganj to inspect the premises. The petitioner has stated that the auction sale has not been challenged before any Court of competent jurisdiction by the borrowers who had mortgaged the property. According to the petitioner, it is the duty of the bank to handover the physical possession of the property without any let or hindrance by the borrowers and though the petitioner had approached the bank on several occasions, it has neither ensured vacant possession nor has it taken over custody of the movables which are lying in the premises. The bank, it has been submitted, had taken over the physical possession of the property on 28 December 2012 pursuant to the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act and it was incumbent on it, while handing over physical possession, to ensure that the movables are removed, otherwise the petitioner apprehends that he may be held accountable by the borrowers in the event that any of the movable articles which are still