IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that strict adherence to notice requirements under the Securitization Act is essential to protect a borrower's right of redemption.

JUDGMENT :

This intra Court appeal by the appellant-borrower is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.3.2023, passed in Writ C No. 1595 of 2021, whereby the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Regular Appeal No. 17 of 2020 dated 15.12.2020 has been set aside. The appellate tribunal had set aside the auction sale held by the bank on 10.9.2018 after quashing the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 31.1.2019, in Securitization Appeal No. 59 of 2018. The respondent-bank was also directed by the appellate tribunal to refund the auction money to the auction purchaser after restoring the possession of immovable and movable property from the auction purchaser to the borrower. Liberty was also granted to the bank to proceed further from the stage of issuance of sale notice, in accordance with law. The appellate tribunal had returned a finding that no notice was actually served on the appellant borrower.

2. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ and setting aside the appellate order of tribunal held that the appellant was aware of the date of auction and, therefore, the auction notice was within the knowledge of the appellant.

3. At the very outset an objection is taken to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the proceedings arose out of an order passed in appeal as such the special appeal itself would not be maintainable.

4. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1952') provides for the remedy of filing special appeal which is reproduced hereinafter :

''5. Special appeal : An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction 2[or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.''

5. A perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of 1952 would indicate that the first part of the rule provides for special appeal to be maintainable from a judgment passed by a Single Judge of this Court. The subsequent part of the rule then provides the circumstances and exigencies in which the appeal would not be maintainable. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(1) ADJ 1 (FB). Para 18 of the Full Bench judgment is relevant and is extracted hereinafter :

''Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:

1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;

2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of