Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ankit Saran learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri U.N. Khare for auction purchaser-respondent No. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 5 is the wife of petitioner, who is stated to be owner of the disputed property which has been mortgaged with the bank and will be mentioned as the ‘secured asset’ hereinafter.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad as well as the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad in the Securitisation Application No. 240 of 2014 (Sanjeev Kumar Porwal v. State Bank of India, Jalaun and others). The order dated 24.9.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun namely respondent No. 3 is also being challenged in the present petition.

3. Brief facts relevant to decide the controversy are that the petitioner namely Sanjeev Kumar Porwal, the Proprietor of ‘M/s Maa Vaishno Traders, Naveen Galla Mandi, Jalaun, had taken a cash credit limit facility to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs from the State Bank of India, Jalaun and had mortagaged his House No. 69, a residential house measuring 894.98 Sq. Ft., as a collateral security.

4. It appears that there was default in repayment of loan and as such the demand notice dated 11.5.2012 was served upon the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 20,96,600/-. Since no payment was made by the petitioner, the respondent bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’). The notice under Section 13(2) dated 20.9.2012 demanding an amount of Rs. 21,64,074 alongwith interest was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.10.2012 raising certain objections to the said notice.

5. It appears that the possession notice under Section 13(4) read with Section 8(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 24.12.2012. E-auction notice dated 14.10.2013 was issued by the bank, the reserved price fixed in the auction scheduled on 17.11.2013 was Rs. 20 lacs.

6. At this stage, the petitioner/borrower filed a securitization Application No. 2014 of 2013 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

7. During the pendency of the said application, the compromise was arrived between the bank and the borrower/petitioner wherein the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 22,25,127/- with simple interest @ Rs. 10% w.e.f. 14.11.2013 within a period of 12 months.

8. The Securitisation Application No. 2014 of 2013 was decided in terms of the compromise after the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs with the bank to show his bona fide.

9. It is admitted to the petitioner that on account of some personal difficulty he could not repay the entire debt and there was default in repayment of outstanding dues as per the compromise dated 23.11.2013.

10. The bank had, therefore, proceeded to publish another E-auction notice dated 28.2.2014 wherein reserved price was fixed to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. However, no auction was held. After approximately two months, another e-auction notice dated 7.4.2014 was issued by the bank wherein reserved price was fixed to the tune of Rs. 14.48 lacs and the scheduled date fixed for auction was 8.5.2014. The auction could not be held on the said date. Third auction notice dated 1.6.2014 was issued fixing reserved price of Rs. 14.48 lacs and auction was scheduled on 4.7.2014 when it was held and the secured asset was auctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 being the highest bidder.

11. At this stage, the Securitisaion Application No. 240 of 2014 was filed on 4.7.2014 challenging the auction held by the bank. During pendency of the said application, auction has been confirmed by the bank and the sale certificate has been issued on 3.9.2014.

12. Befor