borrowers, guarantors, and public, in general, were informed that a bid was already received for Rs.40 Lakhs and that any bids higher than Rs.40 Lakhs were invited. However, no higher bid was received in response to the public notice in newspapers dated 05.03.2012. Thereafter, a fresh sale notice was again published on 24.05.2015inviting bids. In response to that, the highest bid received was for Rs.51 Lakhs. Since the Respondent Bank thought that the amount offered was still less, the Appellant was addressed by means of a letter dated 29.03.2016 to find anyone offering a bid higher than Rs.51 Lakhs and was also informed that if no other offers for a higher amount are received, the bid for Rs.51 Lakhs would be accepted. There was no response to the letter from the Appellant. Despite that, the Bank again issued a fresh public notice in a newspaper on 30.03.2016 but still, no higher bids were received. The Bank decided to call the sole bidder who had offered a sum of Rs.51 Lakhs for the property, for negotiations. Fortunately, the purchaser revised the offer and was willing to raise the amount to Rs.89.37 Lakhs which was accepted and confirmed on 04.08.2016. The Sale Certificate was also issued. It is pointed out that the Application for amendment incorporating a prayer to set aside the sale was filed long after the period of limitation prescribed under Section 17(1). It is submitted that a plea that is barred by limitation cannot be incorporated by way of amendment.
