possession and enjoyment of that warehouse much prior to the creation of the alleged mortgage. Thereafter, the Appellants also purchased the plot of land on which the warehouse was situated. The Appellants claim that they had purchased the property after due diligence and are, therefore, bona fide purchasers of the property. The Appellants, therefore, sought a stay of the auction intended to be conducted by the Recovery Officer. The 1st Respondent bank filed a reply objecting to the claim raised by the Appellants over the subject property. After hearing both sides, the Ld. Recovery Officer dismissed the application filed by the Appellants vide order dated 12/05/2010. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition, the Appellants filed an appeal under section 30 of the RDDB & FI Act challenging the order of the Recovery Officer. The Ld. Presiding Officer had, vide Judgment dated 10/06/2011 dismissed Appeal No. 17/2010. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the Appellants have approached this Tribunal with the present appeal. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Appellants are entitled to get the sale with respect to the subject property set aside in view of their claim over the property.
