auction sale, and thereafter the private sale conducted by the Appellant Bank. It is pertinent to note that the secured debtors did not raise any objection to the fixing of the reserve price till the property was ultimately sold by way of a private treaty to the third Respondent. The debtors do not have a case that they were not served a notice of the three attempted auctions which failed. When the first auction failed to attract any bidders for a reserve price of ₹52,94,800/- on 15.03.2021, it was deemed proper to attempt a fresh auction on 06.04.2021 by reducing the reserve price to ₹48 lacs. But the auction failed again. A third attempt to auction the property at the very same reserve price of ₹48 lacs also proved futile on 27.04.2021. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 do not have a case of violation of the Rules or insufficiency of the reserve price during the three attempted auctions. The Appellant Bank had issued a notice to the debtors about their intention to sell the property by way of a private treaty with the third Respondent. Still, they did not object. Only when the sale was ultimately concluded on 08.06.2021 did Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 approach the D.R.T. with present S.A. No. 183 of 2021 on 25.06.2021. The contention of the learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 that the provisions of Rule 8(5) have not been complied with, which was upheld by the learned P.O. apparently appears to be erroneous. The three attempted public auctions were admittedly held after complying with Rule 8(5). Sale by private treaty is a method of sale of secured assets other than by public auction or public tender and would come within the purview of Rule 8(8) of the Rules which read thus:
