ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Petitioner-Bank extended credit facilities to a tune of Rs. 90.00 lakhs to respondents 3 and 4 for obtaining housing loan. Holding that respondents 3 and 4 defaulted in repayment of the loan, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the Bank has taken recourse to the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Act, 2002’) and DRT Act to recover the money. According to the Notice issued on 11.02.2019 under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, the outstanding dues quantified was Rs. 85,71,031.90 ps. Respondent no.2 claimed that he has entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondents 3 and 4 on 18.07.2018 concerning the property which was subsequently mortgaged and which is treated as secured asset by the petitioner-Bank. Respondent no.2 claimed that he paid Rs. 30.00 lakhs towards advance/part sale consideration, out of total sale consideration of Rs. 1.20 lakhs. He was required to pay balance Rs. 90.00 lakhs at the time of registration within six months from the date of Agreement of Sale. At the time of Agreement of Sale, respondents 3 and 4 have categorically admitted that schedule property was mortgaged with the petitioner-Bank and agreed to clear the Bank dues before the registration of Sale Deed in favour of 2nd respondent. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that in spite of several requests made by him, the registered Sale Deed was not executed in his favour. In those circumstances, he filed O.S.No.1001 of 2019 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, against respondents 3 & 4 and the petitioner-bank.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner-Bank in I.A., opposing interim stay, it is averred that they have already invoked the provisions of the Act, 2002 to recover the outstanding dues and also issued sale notice dated 25.11.2019, fixing the auction sale date on 27.12.2019 in respect of the schedule property. Having come to know that sale notice was already issued proposing to conduct auction of secured asset, which he claimed to have purchased, 2nd respondent filed S.A.No.333 of 2019 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad under Section 17 of the Act, 2002. The Tribunal while disposing of S.A.No.333 of 2019 on 26.12.2019, issued certain directions. They read as under :

“(i) The 1st respondent Bank is directed to defer the auction sale of the application schedule property slated on 27.12.2019 subject to the condition that the applicant deposits 10% of the outstanding dues claimed in the Sale Notice dt.25.11.2019, on or before time and date of auction i.e., 27.12.2019, directly to the 1st respondent Bank;

(ii) The applicant shall pay balance 90% of the outstanding dues claimed by the 1st respondent Bank in the Sale Notice dt.25.11.2019 plus all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the 1st respondent Bank on or before 04.01.2020;

(iii) In the event of failure of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 1st respondent Bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the auction sale of the application schedule property in accordance with law;

(iv) No order as to costs.”

3. According to the 2nd respondent, 10% of the amount was deposited on 27.12.2019. According to the petitioner-Bank, auction could not be conducted on the said date as there was no response to the auction notice. Second respondent filed M.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad seeking extension of time regarding the second direction fixed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Order dated 08.01.2020, granted further time as sought by the 2nd respondent. The operative portion of the order reads as under :

“By having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to deposit the balance 90% of the outstanding dues by 10.01.2020, it is just and proper to give time to the petitioner till said date. Since the petitione