protracted. It is pertinent to note that in the first instance, vide order dated 09.02.2022 the D.R.T. had granted a conditional stay on deposit of ₹1 crore by 10.02.2022. The Respondent failed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time and the sale was confirmed. Thereafter, another application was filed and the D.R.T. had, vide order dated 26.04.2022 granted the reliefs to the Respondent regarding shop No. 10 and other properties on a deposit of Rs.5 crores within six weeks. The Respondent again failed to comply with that order in consequent to which the sale of shop No. 10 was completed and other properties were proceeded against. When physical possession of shop No. 10 which was sold in the auction was attempted to be handed over, and possession of the other properties attempted to be taken, the Respondent filed the present I. A No. 1286/2022 in which the impugned order was passed. The Respondent had again failed to comply with the order and as a consequence of this, the Appeal now became infructuous but the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that there is every possibility the Respondent herein may move the D.R.T. again and get an order of stalling the further Sarfaesi measures under one ruse or other.
