subsequent to receipt of the sale notice, they had approached respondent bank for an amicable settlement of their loan account and in fact had deposited Rs.10 Lakhs on 09.12.2022 when the sale is scheduled to 14.12.2022 and further submitted that they were ready and willing to remit further amounts in discharge of their debt. It is the further case of applicants that they had again approached respondent bank on 21.12.2022 and contemplated to deposit the balance amounts, however by which time respondent bank refused to accept the amounts stating that the property has already been sold to an auction purchaser for a sum of Rs. 90,10,000/- and therefore are not willing to settle the loan account of applicants herein. Ld.Counsel submits that the property has been grossly undervalued since he had himself acquired it in the year 2015 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,20,000/- while respondent bank has fixed the reserve price at Rs.90 Lakhs and sold it for a meagre extension of Rs.10,000/- for Rs.90,10,000/-. Ld.Counsel for applicants submit that applicants had contemplated to extinguish their debt by deposit of their entire sale notice amount with the respondent bank on 21.12.2022 instance while the auction purchaser had remitted the balance amounts and got the sale certificate executed on 22.12.2022 in his favour. Ld.Counsel for applicants submit that since the very debt is extinguishable by 21.12.2022, respondent bank as secured creditor is not having any security interest over the mortgaged property since the mortgage itself is sought to be determined by discharge of the debt due to respondent bank as of 21.12.2022 instance. It is the case of applicants that they had approached respondent bank with a demand draft for the balance amount on 21.12.2022 instance to extinguish their debt, but respondent bank had refused the same stating that the mortgaged asset has been already put to sale on 14.12.2022. Aggrieved by the wrongful contention of
