The court highlighted the authority of the Recovery Officer to issue a corrigendum, the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate and decide the matter.

J.M. MALIK (Chairperson)

1. The Recovery Certificate was issued by the learned DRT on 5th February, 2002 in the sum of Rs.4,55,34,698.43 with future and pendente lite interest and costs with quarterly rests from 27th December, 2000 till the realisation of outstanding dues. The mortgaged properties of Shri C.B. J. Seth and his brother Shri G.B.J. Seth were attached. The Bank received a sum of Rs.75.86 lacs from the State of M.P., respondent No. 3 and discharged it from all the liabilities. The Recovery Officer vide its order dated 21st May, 2007 directed that auction of the property in dispute be conducted. The property belonging to the respondent G.B.J. Seth was auctioned. The learned DRT reversed the order passed by the Recovery Officer. Aggrieved by that order this second appeal has been preferred.

2. On 3rd March, 2007 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass the following orders:

...In the circumstances as agreed by learned Counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the DRT Allahabad on 10th August, 2007 and on that date the DRT Allahabad shall fix a date for final hearing of the petitioners appeal. The DRT Allahabad, shall decide the petitioners appeal on or before 12th September, 2007.

Till the said appeal is decided the interim order dated 21st June, 2007 passed by this Court shall remain operative.

It will be open for the proposed intervener to submit its objection before the DRT. As regards the money deposited by the auction purchaser proposed intervener before the Recovery Officer of the DRT, Jabalpur it is directed that the Recovery Officer shall remit the said amount to the respondent No. 1/Bank forthwith and on receipt of the respondent No. I/Bank shall deposit the same in TDR account.

Needless to say that as stated by Mr. Rajesh Maindiretta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that in case the DRT, Allahabad finds that on setting aside the auction sale the auction purchaser/proposed intervener is entitled to get back the amount, the same shall be redeposited with accrued interest by the respondent No. I/Bank with Recovery Officer within 10 days of the said decision.

The petition stands disposed off with aforesaid directions.

3. In this Court the parties made vain attempts to enter into a compromise. In this case the auction of the property had fetched a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. On 5th February, 2009 I passed the following orders:

Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the intervener Mr. S.R. Solanki offers that his client Mr. Dhanpal Doshi is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.1.30 crores in the capacity of one of the bidders in the auction. He further submits that if the main Auction Purchaser ultimately agrees to go with the auction he will have to make way for him.

Counsel for the auction purchaser submits that the auction with be acceptable to the auction purchaser only if he is given land measuring 5400 sq. feet for which he had deposited the amount.

According to the Counsel for the Bank the land mentioned in the notification and its corrigendum dated 16th May, 2007 the area is 4163 sq. ft. which was mentioned in the corrigendum itself. The objections raised by the Counsel for the borrower are yet to be considered. Parties will get further opportunities to place their cases before the Court. However, in the interest of justice the intervener is permitted to be impleaded as a party subject to his depositing of Rs.1.30 crores with this Court and the said amount be deposited with the Bank concerned in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Allahabad in the shape of FDR for a period of six months renewable till the pendency of this appeal, without prejudice. The rights of the parties are yet to be determined. The said amount be deposited within one week, failing which the application of the intervener shall stand dismissed.

Case be fixed for showing compliance of this order on 13th February, 2009. The other parties need not appear. However, in case of compliance of th