Mr Fazler Rahman vs VIJAYA BANK on 18 October 2024

**FINAL ORDER**

The present Appeal has been filed u/s 26 read with Section 29 & 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 on 13.08.2019 to set aside/quash the Sale Certificate dated 09.07.2019 issued in favour of the auction purchaser; restraining the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Bangalore not to issue any orders to take physical possession till disposal of the two Writ Petitions.

3(Appeal No. 7/2020)Brief facts of the case:

2. The Annexure A2-the Sale Certificate dated 09.07.2019 issued by the Recovery Officer is impugned in the present Appeal, wherein the Recovery Officer issued the Sale Certificate in favour of the Auction Purchaser-Mr Mohamed Idrees in respect of the properties with an extent of 129 Acres 04 Guntas, which is morefully described thereunder.

2.1 The Appellants availed various credit facilities coming under the category of priority sector "Agricultural Loans"; the appellants incurred heavy loss in their crops due to flood, landscape and also hit by Drought in the vicinity where their plantation and estate is situated i.e., Sakaleshpur, Hassan District. Appellants had offered their estate comprising of various Sy.Nos. and at the time of creation of mortgage, totaling to more than 129 acres of Land situated in the prime location of Sakaleshpur, Hassan District. As per Sub-Registrar Value/guideline value, the schedule property fetches atleast Rs.14 crore. Subsequently, the OA was allowed on 03.03.2018 and the Recovery certificate was issued on 06.04.2018. Appellants filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.15/2015) to restore the OA and to recall the Recovery Certificate, which got dismissed.

2.2 Based on the Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Officer has issued Warrant of attachment/proclamation of sale etc. Appellants filed their objections on 30.11.2018 and on 14.01.2019 and Application u/s 22(2)(h) of the RDB&FI Act, 1993. The Recovery Officer has rejected the objections as per the proceedings/Order dated 04.12.2018, 18.01.2019.

2.3 The Recovery Officer should not have put the entire property for sale when a portion of the schedule property can be bifurcated to the extent the amount recoverable which is outstanding in the loan account, could have sold and not the entire property by fixing the reserve price at Rs.12,92,00,000/-. The excess amount need not be recovered by selling the entire portion of property. Appellants filed their Rejoinder to the Application filed as on 14.01.2018 not to 'issue Sale Certificate' since conducting the auction covering the entire property is arbitrary and unfair as only a portion of the property was sufficient to liquidate the dues of the Certificate Holder.

2.4 Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Bangalore, Appellants approached the Hon'ble Presiding Officer u/s 30 of the RDB&FI Act 1993 in D.No.97/2019, which imposed a condition of depositing 50% of the decreed amount -

Rs.2,12,20,076/- . Hence, the Appellants preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.1088/2019(GM-DRT) in which the Hon'ble Court granted an interim order of stay, subject to approach the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellant Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai within a period of three weeks. Accordingly, Appellants preferred an Appeal on 01.07.2019 in AIR No.232/2019 and AIR No.239/2019 on 03.07.2019 respectively; in the case of WP No.21341/2019 (GM-DRT) wherein Appellants have sought for restoration of OA since the MA No.15/2018 got dismissed by this Tribunal.

2.5 The Respondent Bank by swearing to a false affidavit stating that the Appellants have not preferred any appeal, got issued the Sale Certificate from the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Bangalore, when the stay is in existence. Hence, the Sale Certificate dated 09.07.2019 issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser has to be set aside, otherwise, the Appellants reserve their right of filing contempt proceedings.

Grounds raised by Appellants, in brief:

3. A person who by manipulation of a process frustrates the legal rights of others, should not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong or manipulations;

3.1 The Recovery Officer should not have conducted the auction by putting the entire schedule property when the schedule property is divisible in nature and there was no necessity to sell the entire property for a sum of Rs.12,92,00,000/-; 3.2 The Recovery Officer has not passed any separate orders nor communicated to the Appellants herein but simply recorded in the Order sheet; 3.3 The publication of the corrigendum as on 18.01.2019 and refunding the EMD amount to another bidder as on 23.01.2019 and confirming the sale in favour of the single bidder who has quoted only a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh more than Reserve price speaks about the auction proceedings/sale and hence the auction proceedings held as on 22.01.2019 needs to be set aside.

3.4 The Recovery Officer should have ascertained the information about filing of an Appeal as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by Appellants herein; 3.5 The Appellants have informed the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Bangalore and the Bank about the preferring of Appeal before the

DRAT, Chennai. Hence, on the date of hearing, both the auction purchaser and the Counsel for Respondent bank appeared and undertook to file their vakalatnama and got impleaded. Hence, the auction purchaser and respondent bank are aware of the proceedings before the Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai.

3.6 Hon'ble DRAT has passed the orders on 17.07.2019 to deposit the entire amount of Rs.3,41,07,747/- without hearing on IAs on main application itself.

3.7 Appellants have filed two appeals before the DRAT, Chennai, challenging the orders passed in AOR and for having dismissed MA for restoration of OA.

3.8 Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants preferred Writ Petition (Division Bench) before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in W.P.No.35293/2019 and in W.P.35292/2019 respectively.

3.9 The Order of Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai granting four weeks from the date of passing the orders i.e., as on 17.07.2019 obtained on 18.07.2019 and the appellants preferred this petition on 13^th

instant itself and contemplating to get it listed on 14.08.2019 and therefore this application to grant an interim order of stay.

Statement of Objections on behalf of the Certificate Holder, in brief:

4. At the outset, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this present Appeal as the appeal is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as well as barred of law of *res judicata*. This act itself is clear that the Appellants intention is to defeat the recovery proceedings initiated by the Recovery Officer and to make hurdles in recovering the legitimate dues of the Certificate Holder. The respondent bank is not filing any parawise reply to the present application as the averments by the Appellants were fully countered by filing objection in AOR No.(D) No.97 filed by Appellants that was later dismissed for want of compliance of Order dated 12.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal.

4.1 The Recovery Proceedings are initiated by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Bangalore at the instance of Respondent Bank; the auction was conducted by the Recovery Officer; Sale Certificate would be issued by Recovery Officer in favour of the auction purchaser and hence interim relief sought against the Respondent bank is not tenable either in law or in facts.

4.2 Respondent bank filed two different original applications against the petitioners being OA No.89/2017 (TRC No.368/2018) and OA 242/2017. The subject properties for which the petitioners raising their grievances were the primary securities given at the time of availing financial assistance from the Respondent bank on various occasions by the petitioners. Both the applications have been allowed by this Tribunal on 03.03.2018 and 29.09.2018 respectively wherein the combined outstanding liabilities of the petitioners in respect of the Decree passed in OA 89/2017 (TRC No.368) and OA 242/2017 are as Rs.4,36,20,727/- plus interest from 01.12.2018 and Rs.51,58,718.21 plus future interest and other charges. Recovery Certificates have also been issued by the Tribunal in these two cases.

4.3 In the meanwhile, the Appellants filed MA No.15/2018 against the order passed in OA 89/2017 with intent to delay the recovery proceedings. The MA 15/2018 was disposed off by this Tribunal on 18.03.2019. Copy of the Order dated 18.03.2019 is produced as Annexure R1.

4.4 During the pendency of the MA, Recovery Proceedings continued before the Recovery Officer for attachment and sale of

subject mortgaged properties. Based on the warrant of attachment/ proclamation, sale of subject properties was conducted successfully by the Recovery Officer. Meanwhile, the appellants raised their objection by filing application before the Recovery Officer, which was later rejected on merits. Against the Order passed by the Recovery Officer on 04.12.2018 and 18.01.2019, Appellants filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore being AOR(D)No.97/2019 u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993. The DRT, Bangalore passed Order dated 12.03.2019 stating that it is mandatory for the Appellants to deposit 50% of the debt due as per Section 30A before entertaining the present appeal for which the Appellants were granted time upto 08.03.2019 and the Respondent bank was directed to maintain status quo to enable the Appellants to comply with the said provisions of the Act. The Appellants having failed to comply with the above provisions having sought further time for compliance, the appellants were granted time upto 20.03.2019 for full compliance of Section 30A of the Act and the status quo order was extended till 20.03.2019. The amount has not been deposited by the Appellants.

4.5 As per the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. Instead of filing any appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in MA No.15/2018 (supra) or AOR D.No.97/2019 (supra), the Appellants preferred separate Writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore being WP No.21341/2019 and WP No.10811-10885/2019. Both these Writ Petitions were disposed of by Hon'ble High Court with a liberty granted to the Appellants to file appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal along with application for stay within a period three weeks.

4.6 In the absence of any intimation either to the Respondent bank or to Recovery Officer of DRT with regard to filing of any Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of three weeks as directed by Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 11.06.2019, upon the request of the Respondent Bank, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has confirmed the auction sale dated 22.01.2019 in the name of the auction purchaser Sri Mohammed Idress on 09.07.2019 and Sale Certificate also issued on 09.07.2019.

4.7 It is the *mala fide* intention of the Appellants that the Recovery Officer could have sold only a portion of the land for liquidating the debt and not the entire land but conveniently forgetting the agricultural land situated in survey numbers cannot be easily bifurcated as the title deed of the entire survey numbers are in one document and if bifurcated/split, there would not be proper boundary of the bifurcated property and if the property is bifurcated part by part, it is not only a draconian task to get genuine buyer but the value of the property shall not fetch to its maximum value.

4.8 On 12.07.2019, the appellants filed an Affidavit before the Recovery Officer stating that they have filed Appeals before the DRAT, Chennai being AIR No.232/2019 pm 01.07.2019 and AIR No.239/2019 on 03.07.2019 and the cases were tentatively listed at DRAT on 16.07.2019. By reason of the affidavit filed by appellants, the Recovery Officer has ordered the Court Commissioner to defer taking physical possession of the property till 19.07.2019. In both the Appeals, Order dated 17.07.2019 was passed by Hon'ble DRAT, Chennai directing the appellant to make a deposit of OA amount of Rs.3,41,07,747/- with the Registrar of

DRAT within four weeks from the date of order failing which the Appeal would be automatically dismissed for want of compliance. Instead of complying with the Orders passed by the lower Court, Appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court at Bangalore for protection by preferring writ petition-WP No.35299-35303/2019 completely ignoring the legal provisions of law or orders passed by the DRT/DRAT.

4.9 The Appellants collected the certified copy of the order dated 17.07.2019 on 24.07.2019 but waited till eleventh hour moving before Hon'ble High Court at Bangalore seeking protection. From this itself, the intent of the appellants is crystal clear to defeat the recovery proceedings initiated by Respondent Bank.

4.10 The WP Nos.35299-35303/2019 came up for hearing on 14.08.2019 when the Hon'ble High Court passed order directing the Appellants to deposit Rs.1 crore within two weeks from the date of order i.e., 14.08.2019 and in the meanwhile, the Respondent bank not to dispose of the property by handing over possession to the auction purchaser. The order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court was completely ignored by the Appellants (Order copy produced as Annexure R2). The said Writ

Petitions-WP Nos.35299-35303/2019 finally disposed off by Hon'ble High Court on 11.09.2019 granting liberty to the Appellants to approach DRAT for reduction of deposit amount. Further, the interim order should continue for another two weeks from the date of receipt of the order dated 11.09.2019 (copy produced as Annexure R3) to enable the Appellants to make necessary application before the DRAT and after the expiry of two weeks' time, interim order granted by the Court would automatically expire.

4.11 The Respondent bank reproduced Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as under:

*"11. Res Judicata-No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."*

4.12 In the present appeal, the subject matter has already been disposed by this Hon'ble Tribunal by passing order dated 12.03.2019 in AOR (D) No.97/2019 and hence, the Appeal is barred by law of res judicata. In these circumstances, the present Appeal may be dismissed/rejected.

5. Heard the Learned Counsel for Applicant, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perused the records.

6. In this Appeal, the Appellants have prayed for setting aside/quash the 'Sale Certificate' dated 09.07.2019 issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser; to restrain the Recovery Officer, DRT, Bangalore not to issue any orders to take physical possession, till disposal of the two Writ petitions (WP Nos.35293/2019 and 35292/2019) respectively.

7. Further, I have also carefully gone through the Statement of Objections filed by the Respondent bank that the Appeal is barred by law of limitation as well as barred of law of *res judicata*; mandatory deposit of 50% of the debt due payable as per Section 30A of the Act has not been made; instead of filing any Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in MA No.15/2018 or AOR D No.97/2019, the Appellants preferred separate writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the DRT, Bangalore being WP Nos.21341/2019 and WP No.10811-10885 and both these writ petitions were disposed of with a liberty granted to Appellants to file Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal along with application for stay within a period of three weeks; the agricultural land situated in survey numbers cannot be easily bifurcated as the title deed of the entire survey numbers are in one document and if bifurcated/split, there would not be proper boundary of the bifurcated property and it is not only a draconian task to get genuine buyer but the value of the property shall not fetch maximum value.

8. Subsequent to the filing of an application u/s 30(1) of the Act on 13.08.2019, the applicants on 31.10.2022 filed WP No.21951/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka praying to:

1. 1) Quash the order DRC/368/2018 Court of OA/89/2022 issued by the DRT 2 Bangalore dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer;

2. 2) Quash the Sale Certificate issued by DRT 2 Bangalore on 09.07.2019 which was subsequently revalidated on 10.10.2022;

3. 3) Direct that the sums paid by the Respondent Auction Purchaser to be returned to him and possession of the petition schedule property to be recovered by the Recovery Officer

4. 4) Grant an Interim order to stay the operation and validity of the Sale Certificate dated 09.07.2019 issued by DRT 2 Bangalore which was subsequently revalidated on 10.10.2022 and restrain the respondent Auction Purchaser from taking any further steps.

9. The Counsel for Applicant has filed a Memo on 02.05.2024 enclosing therewith the Copy of the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.21951/2022 on 23.02.2024 wherein the contentions raised by the applicants such as (1) a portion of the schedule immovable property should have been sold (2) the schedule immovable property was sold during the stay was in operation were considered and taken care of. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Order is extracted below:

*"26. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Bank has held the auction sale proceedings in a completely illegal manner and in violation of the order passed by this Court. Furthermore, the recovery certificate was issued only to extent of the subject land, however, the Bank issued sale proclamation for the entire land which measures to an extent of 129 acres 4 guntas, which is excess to the debt due.*

*27. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the issuance of a sale proclamation for more than what is covered by the recovery certificate is exceeding the authority granted to the Bank for debt recovery and affecting the rights of petitioners. Additionally, doing so during the pendency of stay proceedings is an attempt to overreach or abuse of its authority. Hence, we hold that the auction sale proceeding conducted by the Bank as bad in law and is declared as null and void. Accordingly, we answer the point for consideration in the affirmative.*

*28. We find this a fit case to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.*

*29. The prayer in W.P. No.21951/2022 is to set aside the order passed by Recovery Officer rejecting plaintiff's objection to Recovery Certificate.*

*30. The prayer in WP No.21725/2022 is to set aside DRAT's order upholding the direction issued by Recovery Officer to deposit 50%.*

*31. The prayer in W.P.No.21752/2022 is to set aside DRAT's order upholding DRT's order in MA 15/2018.*

A green checkmark or signature mark is located at the bottom left of the page, below the text.

32. The Recovery Certificate dated 06.04.2018 is for Rs. Rs.3,41,07,747/-. Admittedly the said Recovery Certificate is based on an ex-parte order. Plaintiffs have offered to deposit Rs.3,97,72,475.5/-. Without prejudice to their defense before the DRT.

33. In any event, the amount recoverable as per the Recovery Certificate was only Rs.3,41,07,747/-. To recovery the said sum, land measuring 129 acres has been brought to action which has yielded Rs.12,00,00,000/- . This means sale of about 40 acres would have been sufficient. Though the property is mortgaged to the Bank whose value is for an excess of recoverable debt, respondents are required to apply their mind and bring to auction only such quantum of land to cover the recoverable debt.

34. In our considered opinion, sale of 129 Acres was uncalled for, and therefore, liable to be set-aside. Admittedly, O.A filed in the year 2017. The auction purchaser has paid money for 129 acres, his money will have to be repaid with reasonable compensation. Also Bank's interest shall have to be protected. Hence, it would be evitable to direct the plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs.3,41,07,747/- together with interest to be computed as per the contractual rate of interest till the date of deposit within a reasonable period as a condition precedent to set aside the sale.

35. In light of the above discussion, the following:

ORDER

- i) W.P.No 21951/2022 is **partly allowed**. Prayer in Clause (1) & (2) are rejected.

- ii) Prayer Clause (3) is allowed and the Bank is directed to refund the amount received from the Auction Purchaser/Respondent No.2 with simple interest @ 18% P.A from the date of deposit till the date of refund in an outer limit of 8 weeks from the receipt of the order;

- iii) Liberty is reserved to Auction Purchaser/Respondent No.2 to claim expenditure, if any, incurred on the land by placing material before the DRT. The DRT shall adjudicate such claim, if any, the Auction Purchaser, and determine the compensation payable;

- iv) Petitioners shall deposit Rs.3,41,07,747/- together with interest to be computed as per contractual rate of interest till the date of deposit within 8 weeks from the date of this order.

- v) W.P.No.21752/2022 is **dismissed**.

- vi) W.P.No.21725/2022 is **dismissed**.

No costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE S/d- Judge"

10. Subsequent to the above order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated 23.02.2024 in WP No.21951/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has forwarded a copy of the Order dated 06.08.2024 passed in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.20870/2024 preferred by the Respondent Bank, the relevant portion of the Order is extracted below:

*"UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following*

**O R D E R**

*Delay condoned.*

*We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and, hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.*

*We, however, clarify that the consequence of the impugned judgment/order is that the borrower will be liable to pay interest in terms of the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.*

*Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."*

11. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the appeal with regard to quashing of DRC No.368/2018 has been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court in the Order dated 23.02.2024 as mentioned above. Further, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the auction sale proceedings conducted by the bank as bad in law and was declared as null and void and directed the Bank to refund the amount received from the Auction Purchaser with simple interest as directed thereunder. Therefore, the relief sought for in the Appeal has already been answered, nothing remains to proceed further in the Appeal. Furthermore, on the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Bank against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 21951/2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the same and clarified that the borrower will be liable to pay interest in terms of the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

12. In the above circumstances, as there is nothing to proceed further in the Appeal, the Appeal has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Order. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned. A copy of this order be communicated to the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal. Ordered accordingly.

*(Dictated to my Private Secretary directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of October, 2024]*

(IMTIAZ ALI) PRESIDING OFFICER(I/c) DRT-II, BENGALURU

**APPENDIX** **LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>SI No.</th> <th>Particulars</th> <th>Annexure</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>Copy of the W.P.Nos.35293-97 of 2019(GM-DRT) c/w WP Nos.35299-303 of 2019 Interim order of Stay copy</td> <td>A1</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<table border="1"> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>Copy of Certificate of Sale dt. 09.07.2019</td> <td>A2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Copy of the DRC 368/2018 proceedings</td> <td>A3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Copy of Order of Confirmation of Sale</td> <td>A4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Copy of the Affidavit filed by Bank</td> <td>A5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Memos dated 20.03.2019 &amp; 13.03.2019, Memo of claim dt.09.07.2019, Letter to SRO dt.09.07.2019 by RO-I, Memo dt.09.07.2019 by Bank</td> <td>A6</td> </tr> </table>

**LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th>SI No.</th> <th>Particulars</th> <th>Annexure</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>1</td> <td>Order dated 18.03.2019 passed by this Tribunal dated 18.03.2019</td> <td>R1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>Order dated 14.08.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court in WP No.35299-35303/2019</td> <td>R2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Order dated 11.09.2019 passed by Hon'ble High Court in WP No.35299-35303/2019</td> <td>R3</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

18.10.24 (IMTIAZ ALI) PRESIDING OFFICER(I/c) DRT-II, BENGALURU

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU**

Dated this 18th day of October 2024

**PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER (I/c)**

**Appeal No.7/2020**

**In**

**TRC No.368/2018 in OA No.89/2017**

**Between:**

1. 1. Mr Fazler Rahman, 1^st Respondent, 1^st Defendant/1^st CD

2. 2. Mrs Shamiminissa, 2^nd Respondent, 2^nd Defendant/2^nd CD Both are residing at No.536, 16^th Main, 3^rd Block, Behind BDA Complex, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034. (APPELLANTS HEREIN)

3. 3. Mr A.F. Durez, Aged 38 years, S/o. Sri Fazler Rahman, BaitulFazal, Opp: Shankar Mutt Road, K.R. Puram, Hassan 573 201. 3^rd Respondent, 3^rd Defendant/3^rd CD (APPELLANT HEREIN)

4. 4. Mr Tanvir Jabbar, 47 yrs, S/o. Sri Abdul Jabbar, R/at No.819, K.R. Puram, Hassan 573 201. 4^th Respondent/ 4^th Defendant 4^th CD/APPELLANT HEREIN

5. 5. Mr Azam Ali, Aged about 49 years, S/o. Late Zafar Ali, Kohinoor House, D.No.81, Vallabhai Road, Hasan 563 201. 5^th Respondent 5^th Defendant/4^th CD (APPELLANTS HEREIN)

**And:**

1. 1. Vijaya Bank, (Now, Bank of Baroda) Hassan Main Branch, Kruthika Arcade, H.N. Pura Road, -Rep.by its Manager Sri R Senthil Kumar Applicant/Certificate Holder (RESPONDENT BANK HEREIN)

2. 2. Mr Mohamed Idrees, S/o. Late Mohamed Sab, Aged about 56 years, R/at No.144, Sufi's Mansion, Railway Station Road, SS Puram, Tumkur 572 102. RESPONDENT/ AUCTION PURCHASER

**FINAL ORDER**

*[Handwritten signature]* *18.10.24*