“9. This Tribunal is, however, not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not the duty of Courts/Tribunals to collect evidence for the litigants approaching for some reliefs to establish their case. So, it is for the appellant here herself to establish that the Bank had violated any provision of the SARFAESI Act or that it was illegally going to take possession of a wrong property which was not its secured asset. Therefore, I do not find any merit in I.A. No. 193/2016 and the prayer of the appellant-security application for a direction to the patwari to come to her aid in establishing her case. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. As far as the joint application No.385/2018 moved by the appellant and the auction purchasers with the prayers which I have already noticed is concerned the same is equally devoid of any merit. With the consent of the appellant and the auction purchasers, who are not even parties in this appeal and in fact not even before the DRT, the auction sale conducted by the Bank cannot be quashed and that too ignoring the opposition of the Bank that sale cannot be set aside just like that with the consent of a total stranger to the auction process inasmuch the appellant is not a defaulting borrower of the respondent Bank and the mortgagor, son of the appellant, has already lost his legal battle. Therefore, joint I.A. No.385/2018 is also rejected. Since the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.1.25.crores to the Bank as a condition for grant of stay by this Tribunal against her dispossession and consequent to which order of status quo she has continued to occupy and enjoy the property in respect of which she had sought interim relief she will be refunded the amount of Rs. 1.25 crores by the respondent Bank within a week. It is, however, clarified that this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the case of either of the appellant or of the Bank and only the prayer of the appellant for a direction to the patwari for demarcation has been examined and rejected. The DRT will be at liberty to pass any final order in the S.A. after examining the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties.”
