4] By this time, it was very much within the knowledge of the writ petitioner that there was no inter se auction between Mr. Mahendra Singh and the auction purchaser and the only challenge was by the borrower challenging confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser. In the order dated 23 April 2014 stated above so far as the right of the writ petitioner in terms of the order dated 18 December 2012, there was no reference that he was still having right to participate in the auction or if Mahendra Singh did not come forward by depositing certain amount for the purpose of re-auction, the re-auction between the present writ petitioner and the auction purchaser should be conducted. In absence of any such liberty being reserved to the writ petitioner by order dated 23 April 2014, in the absence of writ petitioner not challenging the order dated 23 April 2014, he has to be happy with the position that his right to offer more price would come into existence only if the confirmation of sale in favour of the 1st respondent herein (auction purchaser) fails. Otherwise, he never had an independent right to participate in the re-auction between himself and the auction purchaser. His right was limited to participate only if there were to be a re-auction between the auction purchaser and one Mr. Mahendra Singh. In absence of neither the borrower challenging the confirmation of sale nor the financial institution at whose instance the property was sold nor another financial institution, who came with the claim of security in their favour, we fail to appreciate the stand of the writ petitioner. In the light of above discussion and reasoning, we are of the opinion that the writ petition fails.
