1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by judgment dated 27.4.2012 passed in Appeal No. R-164/11 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner Firm M/s. Mayunk Industries is engaged in construction business and a work order was issued by M/s. Pratibha Industries Limited, Mumbai in favour of the petitioner Firm to carry out certain work. The petitioner based upon the work order given to the petitioner requested the Union Bank of India for grant of financial assistance and it was sanctioned vide letter dated 15.12.2007. The Bank has sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 50 Lacs.

3. Various agreements were executed between the parties and the Bank obtained collateral security by executing equitable mortgage of two storied house i.e. House No. A39, Chandra Nagar, A. B. Road, Indore (M.P.). The petitioner has further stated that interest was paid every quarterly. The petitioner has further stated that later on the respondent Bank classified the petitioner's account as "NPA" as the last entry in the statement of the account for the month of December 31st, 2008, January 31st, 2009 and 28.2.2009 was in excess of the limit sanctioned by the Bank.

4. The petitioner has further stated that a notice was issued on 17.6.2009 under section 13(2) of the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 2002") directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 52,30,101/- as on 31.3.2009 and the petitioner submitted a letter to the Bank on 16.8.2009 praying some more time to repay the amount on medical ground.

5. Subsequently, another notice was issued on 25.8.2009 under section 13(4) of Act of 2002 for taking possession of the assets on 31.8.2009 and the petitioner filed reply / objection on 28.8.2009. On 31.8.2009, the Bank took symbolic possession of the property i.e. House No. A-39, Chandra Nagar, A. B. Road, Indore (M.P.) and a possession / sale notice dated 31.8.2009 was also served to the petitioner and the guarantor.

6. The possession notice was also published in "Nai Duniya" on 30.1.2010 and a notice for sale of property was also published on 15.3.2010 in "Hindustan Times" as well as in "Dainik Bhaskar". The petitioner's counsel issued a notice on 23.2.2010 for stopping the process of sale, which was scheduled for 15.3.2010 and subsequently another recovery notice was issued by the Bank on 23.2.2010 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 56,03,449.20 within seven days. The petitioner was also placed in CIBIL list.

7. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal under section 17 of the Act of 2002 along with an application for grant of interim relief and the application was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur by an order dated 15.3.2010. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal under Sub section (1) of section 18 of the Act of 2002 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, a writ petition was preferred against the order dated 15.6.2010 in Writ Petition No. 7650/2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 5.7.2010.

8. The District Magistrate on 6.7.2010 after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner passed an order for taking physical possession. The petitioner again approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and in the second appeal, which was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner filed two amendment application on 29.9.2010 and 5.4.2011. The petitioner wanted impleadment of Mr. Ashok Saxena as an applicant, which was disallowed by an order dated 8.7.2011. The second appeal was finally decided on 30.9.2011 and it was dismissed.

9. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal under Sub section (1) of section 18 of the Act of 2002 and the same has also been dismissed. The pre