The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of redemption exists for the mortgagor until the sale deed is registered in favor of the auction purchaser, and failure to repay the outstanding loan can lead to the extinguishment of the right of redemption.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri I.M. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Mayank Pathak for respondent No.2- Bank.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the auction proceedings which has culminated into confirmation of the auction by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Milkipur, Faizabad.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a proprietor of a business firm, namely Rahul Fertilizers. He had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.1985 from Punjab National Bank, Branch, Kumarganj, District Faizabad for the purpose of fertilizer business. The said loan was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- on 23.9.1987. The petitioner could not repay the said loan and consequently the respondent-bank initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of recovery certificate on 7.3.1994. Despite issuance of the recovery certificate the outstanding amount of loan was not repaid consequently the bank proceeded to auction the mortgaged property by sale proclamation on 23.2.1999 against the petitioner of the agricultural loan exiting on khata No.342, gata No.s 219 A/0-18-02, 98/1/0-9-10, 207/0-13-0, 219 Ba/1-10-14, 272 Kha/1-12-0, 280/0-17-5, 281/0-1-10 and 288/0-7-0 which land was mortgaged to secure the loan obtained by the petitioner. The auction proceedings were held on 22.3.1999 and the agricultural land of the petitioner was auctioned for an amount of Rs.52,000/- in favour of respondent No.5.

4. Bring aggrieved by the auction the petitioner preferred objections under Sections 285 (1) of Z.A. Rules before the Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad on 5.4.1999. The Divisional Commissioner on receiving the said objections also considered the fact that the petitioners was ready and willing to repay the said loan gave him time by means of order dated 7.5.2003 to deposit the entire outstanding amount of loan with the bank and informed the petitioner that in case he deposits the said amount with the bank, the said auctions proceedings would not be confirmed and the auction will be set aside.

5. It seems that the petitioner could not deposit the said amount by the date fixed i.e. 7.6.2003 but in the meantime the petitioner moved another application for extension of time for depositing the outstanding amount of loan. The application of the petitioner was favorably considered by learned Commissioner who by means of his order dated 5.6.2003 gave further thirty days' time to the petitioner to deposit the said amount by 7.7.2003. Even during the extended time period the outstanding amount was not deposited by the petitioner and in these circumstances the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing writ petition No.2127 (M/S) of 2003. This Court by means of order dated 4.7.2003 had disposed of the said writ petition recording that the petitioner had filed his objections under Section 285 (1) of Z.A. Rules and he was granted time to deposit the outstanding amount of loan by 7.6.2003. It was further observed that the petitioner could not deposit the said amount due to financial constraints but is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount and consequently the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 7.5.2003 was modified to the extent that the petitioner may deposit Rs.20,000/- with the bank before 31.7.2003 and the remaining amount before 30th September, 2003.

6. It is in compliance of the order of this Court dated 4.7.2003 which had modified the order of the Commissioner dated 7.5.2003 the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.7.2003 but it seems that he could not deposit the remaining amount and as per the impugned order a report was called from the bank which also confirmed that the petitioner had not deposited the remaining amount as directed by the High Court in their letter dated 30.10.2003. The respondent on being made aware of the fact that even the order of High Court had not been comp