1. The petitioner is before this court seeking a direction to respondent No.1, to honour the compromise settlement dated 29.11.2004 and has also sought a consequential direction to receive the balance compromise settlement amount of Rs.44.10 lakhs for a settlement that is said to have been arrived on 29.11.2004.

2. The writ petition is filed on 09.12.2021, seventeen years after the alleged settlement by the Bank.

3. Heard Sri. Srikanth A., learned counsel for Sri. M. R. V. Achar, for the petitioner, Sri. Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Rudrabhushan C.B., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondents 3 and 4 are served and unrepresented.

4. Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this court in subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The Petitioner claims to be a registered Partnership Firm comprising of three partners and a small scale industry. In the year 1989, the petitioner approaches the first respondent - State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank' for short) and sought finance against certain properties on mortgage. In the year 1999, after about 10 years after the said loan being given, the petitioner appears to have defaulted in payment of the installments towards the loan. This leads to the account of the petitioner slipping into becoming a Non - Performing Asset. The Bank takes recourse to provisions of law and approaches the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in O.A.No.855/99. The Tribunal by its order dated 26.12.2003 allows the application filed by the Bank and directs the Bank to take recourse in the manner known to law. Since the order passed by the Tribunal was without hearing the petitioner herein, the petitioner files a Miscellaneous Application before the very court in M.A.No.35/2004 seeking recalling of the order dated 26.12.2003 passed in O.A.No.855/99 and to permit the petitioner to cross examine the Bank officials and adduce evidence.

5. By then, a development that had taken place between the petitioner and Bank was that, the Bank had issued a letter on 29.11.2004 approving the compromise offer given by the petitioner which was akin to a one time settlement with certain conditions. Those conditions having been deviated, the Bank puts up the property for sale and in pursuance to the auction conducted on 12.09.2006, a certificate of sale was issued in favour of the respondent No.2, the auction purchaser on 04.07.2007. Therefore the sale takes place on 12.09.2006 and certificate of sale was issued to the second respondent on 04.07.2007. Then, the family members of the petitioner challenged the certificate of sale so issued in favour of respondent No.2 by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16499/2007. This court by its order dated 15.12.2008 rejects the writ petition as having become infructuous reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the said sale certificate before the Tribunal.

6. It transpires that again the family members of the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai ('Appellate Tribunal' for short) in M.A.No.230/2007. This comes to be dismissed on the ground that no deposit was made by the family members of the petitioner while filing the appeal. This is called in question before the High court of Madras in W.P.Nos.24590 and 22872/2012. The High Court of Madras dismisses the petition by its order dated 12.09.2012. This ended the litigation of the petitioner or family members of the petitioner, proprietor of the petitioner firm in challenge to the sale that was made by the Bank.

7. After all these proceedings, the family members of the petitioner instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.3513/2012 in which the first defendant is the present petitioner. The suit is claimed to be pending adjudication before the competent civil court. In the said suit, the respondent No.2, the auction purchaser, the Bank and the recovery officer are sought to be deleted from the array