was also confirmed. In Para 8.d of the reply filed by the contemnors, it was disclosed that on 28.02.2018, fresh auction was carried, in which the property was auctioned to the highest bidder and sale certificate was issued on 26.04.2018. Along with the additional affidavit, sale certificate dated 26.04.2018 has been filed as Annexure P-7, which reveals that sale certificate has been issued by Arinendu Shekhar in the capacity of Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Cell and Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Rajapark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Said Arinendu Shekhar was not a party in the contempt petition. The respondents-contemnors in the contempt petition, though had defended the action of confirmation of sale, neither from the contempt petition, nor from the reply, additional affidavits or other pleadings filed by the parties including the contempt petitioners, it would reveal as to what role was played by the respondents-contemnors in the matter of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate followed by delivery of possession and finally acceptance of bid amount offered by the auction purchaser. Even after reply was filed by the respondents-contemnors in the contempt petition revealing the action of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate, by way of rejoinder affidavit or otherwise, the contempt petitioners have not alleged that confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate was under the directions/dictates of the contemnors impleaded in the contempt petition. Who has confirmed the sale, has not been specifically pleaded in the contempt petition. While it is true that the appellants-bank officials have sought to defend the action of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate, which has not been accepted by learned Single Judge and even, we are of
