decided along with the appeal filed by the petitioner
and it remained pending. It was taken up for hearing
rather belatedly and certain observations are made in
the judgment which decided the said appeal. The
appeal was dismissed, but the petitioner is trying to
take advantage of certain fact that is mentioned in
the judgment of Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Judgment
Debtor before the auction sale had sold half portion
of the land to a third party. The learned senior
counsel contended that on this point the locus of
judgment debtors to challenge the Auction Sale could
have been questioned. This point was not raised
earlier. Since this was not done, he wants
appropriate relief for the petitioner. This submission
now is merely academic. Even if we assume that the
judgment debtors were guilty of suppression of certain
fact, for several other reasons, the sale in favour of
the petitioner was set aside. The appeal bearing No.
205 of 2005 of the secured creditor bank remained
pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal was virtually
infructuous. The bank could not have derived any
benefit in this appeal, because up to the Supreme
Court the auction sale was held to be bad in law. So,
the judgment in Bank's appeal No. 205 of 2005 is of no
consequence to the parties and to the outcome of this
litigation.
