that they are third parties to the loan dues and that respondents 2 to 5 are the persons who have availed the benefits of the loan funds and are liable for discharge of the same to the 1st respondent bank. It is also pleaded on behalf of applicant that respondents 2 to 5 have mortgaged 6 properties standing in their name and created security interest in favour of 1st respondent bank by depositing the original title deeds, which all have a market value more than the loan outstanding due for recovery by the 1st respondent bank. However, contrary to exploring the possibility of invoking security interest in the assets mortgaged by the principal borrowers, 1st respondent bank without considering the same had invoked their SARFAESI rights against the mortgaged property of the present applicant, who is only a guarantor and shall be made liable for the debt after the assets of respondents 2 to 5. It is also the case of applicant that the mortgaged schedule property is their residential property in which they are residing and that they need to continue their living in the said place. It is the further case of applicant that they intend to exercise their right of redemption of the mortgaged property from the clutches of guarantee extended to the 1st respondent bank and are ready and willing to cause the deposit of the value of the said property, to thwart the illegal actions of the respondent bank and then shall retain their Right of Subrogation as against the principal debtors who are liable to discharge the debt as provided under Sec.140 of the Indian Contract Act (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal, United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tandon and others).In fact, applicant had furnished a memo into this Tribunal dated 12.07.2022, suggesting therein that she is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.65,00,000/towards redemption of her property from the impugned SARFAESI proceedings of the 1st respondent bank, since that is the amount mentioned as reserve price by the 1st
