O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal Order passed by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,

Chennai in I.A.No.9830/2016 in O.S.No.3286/2014, dated 04.01.2020. 2. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the

Plaintiff in the Suit had filed the Suit seeking compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the Defendant.

3. The subject matter of the Suit is that the first Defendant/Bank had taken auction for recovery of the loan which was defaulted by the Defendants 2 to 5, who are the partnership firm and its partners. At the time of availing the loan, they had furnished a property in Chennai as their security for the loan. Apart from that, one of the partners had furnished the deed for the property at Vadavalli in Coimbatore as collateral security. Since they had not paid the dues and the loan was outstanding, the Bank Officials by way of abundant caution initiated auction over the property at Vadavalli in Coimbatore which was also shown as collateral security. Before initiating recovery proceedings by attaching the property of borrower at Coimbatore, the first Defendant Bank had applied for computer generated copy from the REGENET i.e, internet website of the Department of Registration seeking encumbrance through the REGENET wherein all the particulars throughout the State of Tamil Nadu for any property are available. Therefore, the Bank believing the encumbrance obtained from the REGENET of the Registration Department, State of Tamil Nadu Government. Based on which, recovery proceedings were initiated by the first Defendant through the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the outstanding dues of the Defendants 2 to 5.

4. As an abundant caution, the first Defendant/Bank had issued public notice regarding the default of loan committed by the Defendants 2 to 5 and the attachment proceeding under this SARFAESI Act against the property furnished in Coimbatore as collateral security. Public notice was issued through the Indian Express and Dinamalar, Coimbatore Edition. After such public notice, the Recovery Officer attached to Debt Recovery Tribunal had initiated recovery proceedings. Based on which, publication was issued and after reasonable opportunities were given to the general public to raise objection. Since no objection were received by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Debt Recovery Tribunal through the recovery officer/D6 had attached the property. Subsequent to the attachment, paper publication was issued based on which, before auction was conducted. In the open bid property attached was brought to sale by public auction. The successful bidder had purchased the property attached under the SARFAESI Act by paying Rs.65,00,000/- to the first Defendant. After such public auction was conducted, Recovery Officer/D-6 in O.S.No.3286/2014

had issued sale certificate.

5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner also submitted that the proceedings were initiated for attachment and sale of the property are similar to the proceedings followed under the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Authorities. The same procedure is followed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Therefore, the conduct of the proceedings for recovery of loan for the default committed by the Defendants 2 to 5 who had borrowed loan from the first Defendant/Canara Bank and the auction initiated under the SARFAESI Act are proper. It is similar to the conduct of the attachment and sale of the property under the Income Tax Act for the default committed by the Income Tax Assessee. After issuing the sale certificate by the Recovery Officer/D-6, the successful purchaser had approached the Sub Registrar, Vadavalli for registering the sale certificate, based on which, he has to seek possession of the property. When the successful purchaser approached the Sub Registrar, Vadavalli for obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate. Only then he came to know that the Defendants 2 to 5 who had availed the loan fr