Madras High Court
Muthu Agencies vs Indian Bank (Main Branch) on 2 August, 2018
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 09.07.2018
Pronounced on : 02.08.2018
Dated: 02.08.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
C.R.P.(MD)(NPD).No.2332 of 2008 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008
and
C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.535 of 2017 and
CMP(MD)No.2474 of 2017
C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008
1.Muthu Agencies
Through its Proprietor Muthu
Door No.118, Railway Station Road,
Nagal Nagar, Dindigul Town.
2.Muthu ? Petitioners
Vs.
Indian Bank (Main Branch),
Represented by its Manager,
Dindigul Chatram Street,
Dindigul. ? Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code, against the fair Order and executable order passed in I.A.No.83 of 2008
in O.S.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge,
Dindigul, dated 20.11.2008.
C.R.P.(PD).(MD).No.535 of 2017
Indian Bank,
Through its Manager,
Dindigul Main Branch,
No.9, Chathram Street,
Dindigul 624 001. ? Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Sasikumar
2.Dr.P.Anandan
3.Dhanalakshmi
4.R.Solaiappan
5.J.Regina Mery
6.Nagammal
7.Durga
8.C.Muthu
9.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul East Taluk,
Dindigul.
10.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Velu Nachiyar Complex,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul.
11.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town North Police Station,
Dindigul.
12.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair Order and executable order passed in
I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal
District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
!For Petitioners:
Mr.M.Kannan (in CRP.No.2232/2008)
Mr.M.Senthilkumar
(in CRP.No.535/2017)
^For Respondents:
Mr.R.Devaraj (in CRP.No.2332/2008)
Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar
for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar (for R1, R2, R3, R5 to R7 in CRP.No.535/2017)
Mr.M.Kannan (for R8 in CRP.No.535/2017)
Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi
Government Advocate (for R9 to R12 in CRP.No.535/2017)
No Appearance ? (for R4)
:COMMON ORDER
I heard Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.2232/2008, Mr.M.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.535/2017, Mr.R.Devaraj, learned counsel for the respondent in CRP.No.2332/2008, Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar for Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 to 7 in CRP.No.535/2017, Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel for the 8th respondent in CRP.No.535/2017 and Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 9 to 12 in CRP.No.535/2017 and perused the entire materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the 4th respondent.
2.Both the C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2322 of 2008 and C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.535 of 2017, arise out of the same subject matter and hence it is taken up together for joint disposal.
3.The challenge in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 is to the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.33 of 2004 dated 20.11.2008. The challenge in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.535 of 2017 is to the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul in I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 dated 02.12.2016.
4.Now, the only issue that arises to be considered is whether the Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.2332 of 2008 is entitled for the relief sought for and whether the action of the Respondent bank is sustainable in Law. Further the issue to be considered is whether the Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.535 of 2017 can get the plaint in O.S.No.797 of 2014 rejected at this stage.
5.It is not in dispute that the Respondent in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2332 of 2008 had filed the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 on account of two claims namely OCC Loan account facilities and MTL/ Vehicle loan account. The Petitioner had contested the liability and admittedly the civil suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 was pending on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Dindigul. The liability of the Petitioner was yet to be ascertained and crystallized. Even before that the Respondent bank had without withdrawing /abandoning the suit or at least without informing the competent civil Court, straight away invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued section 13(2) notice. It is pertinent to note that the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 was not transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to be tried there. When the Respondent bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act challenging the notice under Section 13(2), the Petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11224 of 2005. This Court had granted an order of interim injunction on 13.12.2005 and the same was made absolute on 23.01.2007. On 05.03.2007, this Court had directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of 6 weeks. The Petitioner has also complied the said direction and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further the Petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in C.R.P.(MD).No.935 of 2005. This Court by order dated 17.09.2007 had directed the Petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai in view of the fact that this Court cannot go into question of facts. The Petitioner had filed S.A.No.16 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. The Respondent bank even after the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11224 of 2005, kept actively prosecuting the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004. The Respondent bank had on the one hand pursued the remedy before the Civil Court and simultaneously had also contested the S.A.No.16 of 2008. It is seen from the records that the Respondent bank had not represented in the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 about any process of bringing the suit schedule property for sale. It is natural for a borrower to expect that since the bank was actively pursuing the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 and the suit was in the final stages and nearing completion he would be able to redeem his property by depositing the Decreetal amount if the Civil Court were to decree the suit in favour of the bank. The conduct of the bank in not informing the Civil Court about any intended sale raises suspicion about the bonafides of the bank. The bank as a public sector institution should be a model money lender and its intention should only be to realize the debt amount and not sell the property of the borrower.
6.The suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 had come up for final disposal before the Trial Court on 20.03.2008 and the Trial Court had passed a Decree and Judgment on 26.03.2008. The Trial Court had in its Judgment dated 26.03.2008 had allowed the claim of the bank as far as the OCC Loan account was concerned and negatived the relief against the bank as regards the MTL/Vehicle loan. Therefore the claim of the bank as against the Revision Petitioner herein was only partially Decreed. Only upon passing of the said Decree, the actual liability as against the Petitioner was ascertained and crystallized. The Trial Court had given two months time from the date of Decree for the Debtor to deposit the decreetal amount.
7.It is contended by the Revision Petitioner in CRP(NPD)(MD) No.2332 of 2008 that he had taken steps to deposit the Decreetal amount before the Trial Court. The period of two months granted by the Trial Court had come to an end on 26.05.2008. It is a fact that 26.05.2008 falling in the month of May is a vacation for the Courts. The Courts had resumed the work after the summer vacation only on 02.06.2008; the Petitioner had immediately filed a Lodgment Schedule on 02.06.2008 as seen from the copy of the detailed register of document and Court fees filed by the Petitioners. It is contended by the Petitioners that the Trial Court requested the Petitioner to file an affidavit and petition seeking permission for the deposit of the decreetal amount on 02.06.2008 and therefore on the very next day they have filed the petition in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.33 of 2004. The Petitioners had also requested the Trial Court to take note of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- already deposited by them during the pendency of the trial as per the direction of this Court and permit them to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.8,54,009/- payable by them. There is no lacuna on the part of the Petitioners as they have steps to deposit the decreetal amount on the very reopening day which is permissible under the Limitation Act. As per Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, the appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the Court reopens. The facts of this case also compel this Court to invoke the principles underlying Section 4 of the Limitation Act and hence the filing of lodgment schedule for deposit of the decreetal amount on the reopening day is sufficient compliance of the decree on the part of the Judgment Debtor. The finding of the Trial Court that the Judgment Debtor has not complied with the Decree passed in O.S.No.33 of 2004 is erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of Law. In view of the matter, the Fair and Decreetal order in I.A.No.83 of 2008 is liable to be set aside and the Revision Petitioner is entitled to deposit the Decreetal amount in O.S.No.33 of 2004, of course with interest accrued till date.
8.The Respondent bank had filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.83 of 2008 dated 01.07.2008 stating for the first time before the Trial Court that recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been taken and on 03.03.2008 the mortgage property has been sold to a third party and such auction purchaser has also deposited the entire auction sale consideration and his auction sale was confirmed and sale certificate has been issued. The Respondent bank had not disclosed these facts before the Civil Court during the pendency of the civil suit. The surreptitious manner in which the bank has proceeded is also evident from the fact that when it had filed the counter affidavit in I.A.No.83 of 2008 on 01.03.2008 it has rushed to execute the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser on 14.07.2008. The respondent bank has not taken any permission from the Trial Court for either executing the sale certificate or sale deed. Even in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.83 of 2008, the Respondent bank has not disclosed the name of the auction purchaser and the other material particulars relating to the auction sale stated to have been conducted. All these conduct go to prove that the bank has not acted in a fair manner and seems to have stage managed an alleged sale in favour of an auction purchaser when the civil suit was nearing completion and even when the claim of the bank was not crystallized. When the civil Court has dismissed a part of the claim in O.S.No.33 of 2004 and the bank was not entitled to realize the entire debt claimed by them as per the civil Court Decree, in all fairness the bank should have taken steps to cancel the auction sale if at all conducted by them. When a part of the claim debt has been declined by the Decree of a competent Civil Court, it ought not to have proceeded further and execute Sale deed in favour of the alleged auction purchaser.
9.When the I.A.No.83 of 2008 came to be dismissed by the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner had filed the present revision in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 before this Court. This Court had by order dated 11.12.2008 granted an order of interim injunction. In spite of the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition the respondent bank had tried to take physical possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act due to which the borrower filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5769 of 2011. The Hon?ble Division Bench on 05.06.2011 had granted an order of interim stay restraining the Tahsildar, Dindigul from proceeding further. On perusal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5769 of 2011 the alleged auction purchaser one John Peter is the 4th Respondent. Upon his expiry of the said John Peter, his legal heirs have also been impleaded. In the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No. 5769 of 2011, the Revision Petitioner had mentioned about the pendency of the present revision in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008. Therefore the alleged auction purchasers cannot claim ignorance about the pendency of the present Civil Revision Petition. In spite of that the alleged auction purchasers have not come before this Court to contest the C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 by filing appropriate petition. This shows the conduct of the auction purchasers who seem to be fence sitting awaiting the outcome of the present C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008. The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5679 of 2011 ultimately came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 26.03.2012 leaving it open to the Petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to Law. Anyhow it is seen that neither the bank nor the auction purchaser could take physical possession of the property as till date the property tax and electricity receipts stands in the name of the Revision Petitioners in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 and also in view of the suit in O.S.No.593 of 2014 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. Therefore the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5967 of 2011 will not have any material bearing upon the contentions in the present Civil Revision Petition.
10.The Respondent bank even though on the one hand claimed that it had invoked the SARFAESI Act and proceeded to sell the property, on the other hand it had kept prosecuting the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 continuously and thereby kept the borrower under a confused state. The Respondent bank has pursued parallel and inconsistent remedies and simply tried to outwit the borrower and somehow bring the property for sale. The intention of the bank is clearly not realization of debt but to bring the property of the borrower for sale by continuously dodging and misleading the borrower before different Forums under different proceedings. Had the bank stopped with the proceedings in O.S.No.33 of 2004 after at least passing of the Decree on 26.03.2008, the bonafides of the bank could be believed. On the other hand, the bank had painted the picture as if it will be abiding by the Decree in O.S.No.33 of 2004 and had led the borrower to believe as if he could obtain his remedy in the civil proceedings. The bank had strangely filed an appeal in A.S.No.217 of 2009 before this Court against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.33 of 2004 seeking more interest and other relief. When the bank itself has preferred an appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.33 of 2004 it is natural on the part of the borrower to believe that the bank will be abiding by the orders passed in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No. 2332 of 2008 and he would be able to deposit the decreetal amount and redeem his property in the event of his succeeding in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008.
11.The learned counsel for the Respondent bank has contended that since already the bank has sold the property by invoking the SARFAESI Act the Petitioner cannot seek any remedy in the present revision in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008. it is further contended that as if the borrower without complying the condition of the Decree filed an I.A.No.83 of 2008 in the said suit seeking permission to deposit the entire decree amount which was dismissed as the 1st Respondent has not complied with the said order in the said suit and that but on the contrary the borrower has chosen to file a Civil Revision Petition. It is erroneous to state that the borrower has not complied with the order in the suit. As found supra, the borrower has taken steps to deposit the decreetal amount within the time stipulated by the Trial Court. The bank ought not to have invoked the SARFAESI Act without either withdrawing or abandoning or at least informing the competent civil Court before which the bank itself had filed the civil suit. The proceedings before the civil Court and the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are not before the same Forum and are also not under the same provisions of Law. The process of recovery before a Civil Court commences only after the debt amount is crystallized and quantified before the Civil Court. Only after the Decree passed by the Civil Court and there will be a determination of the liability. The question of liquidation of liability before a civil Court will commence only thereafter by Final Decree proceedings or execution proceedings. Whereas Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act deals with liquidation of liability which is enforcement of security interest. Therefore before passing of a Decree by a competent civil Court, the proceedings before the civil Court are not complementary to a proceeding under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On the other hand the proceedings before the civil Court and the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are contradictory and inherently inconsistent between each other.
12.The SARFAESI Act proceedings proceed on the basis that the borrower is already under a liability. On the other hand the question whether the borrower is under a liability and if at all to what extent will be finalized by the civil Court only after passing of the Decree. At least till that stage is reached since the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the Civil Court proceedings are inconsistent, the bank cannot pursue both the remedies simultaneously. In such circumstance the principles of doctrine of election can also be invoked and the bank should have elected either of the two remedies and ought not to have simultaneously proceed under both the remedies. Let us assume that in a given case of similar nature the suit filed by the Creditor Bank came to be dismissed for any reason like bar of limitation, etc., what would be the effect if by that time the bank sells the property by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act? It would clearly be illegal and unlawful and therefore Law would not permit such inconsistencies and illegalities to be committed. In this case the Trial Court had not accepted the entire claim of the Respondent bank. So the bank was not entitled to invoke the SARFAESI Act for the entire debt amount claimed by it when the same has been refused by the competent civil Court. The bank had allegedly brought the property for sale on account of OCC and Vehicle Loan. Whereas the Civil Court had rejected the claim of the bank as regards the vehicle loan and therefore bringing of the property for sale on account of both the said loans itself is unlawful and is liable to be recalled by the bank, the moment the decree was passed. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kalyani Sales Company and another ?Vs- Union of India AIR 2006 P&H 107 also had an occasion to deal with the issue wherein it has held that the bank or financial institution was required to withdraw the suit pending before the civil Court with the permission of the said Court before proceeding under the SARFAESI Act and the bank cannot simultaneously take recourse to two parallel remedies.
13.The bank has not only pursued parallel and inconsistent remedies up to the Trial Court but also approached this Court by filing A.S.No.217 of 2009. This Court has on 18.05.2017 partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the rate of interest from 6% to 9%. In fact the Trial Court itself in I.A.No.83 of 2008 has given a categorical finding that the invoking of the SARFAESI proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 was unlawful. As against the said finding, the Respondent bank has not chosen to file any appeal or revision in the manner known to Law. Thus the finding of the Trial Court as regards the illegality of the bank in invoking the SARFAESI Act pending the suit has attained finality and it will not be acceptable for the bank to raise such a plea at this distant point of time. Thus viewed in any angle, the alleged sale said to have been conducted by the bank during the pendency of the civil suit will not prevent this Court and restrict the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to render justice in the facts of the case. The bank having invoked the inconsistent and parallel remedies and having continued to do the same till date is not entitled for any equitable relief.
14.In fact the civil Revision Petitioner who had all along shown his bonafides by complying with the directions for deposit of amount as directed by this Court time and again has made out a case for exercise of the discretion under Article 227 of Constitution of India by this Court. In fact as early as 2007 i.e., before even the conclusion of the trial, the borrower has deposited a substantial portion of the debt. The bank had not taken any earnest step to settle the dispute by receiving the debt amount especially when the debtor had come forward to deposit the decreetal amount. The bank has even now not furnished any particulars pertaining to the alleged sale said to have been conducted by it. The bank has not filed any documents for this Court to at least have a glance to satisfy itself as to whether the bank followed at least rudimentary principles of auction sale. This shows that the bank is not willing to frankly disclose the facts and it reflects upon the illegal way in which the bank had tried to bring the borrowers property for sale instead of trying to realize the debt. The alleged auction purchasers as stated above have also not taken any earnest steps in spite of the knowledge of the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition. Furthermore the alleged auction purchasers, who are litigation purchasers, may not be entitled to any equity especially as the borrower has taken earnest steps to deposit the decreetal amount. Viewed from another angle it is also clear that the alleged auction purchaser can be treated only at par with an Pendent lite Purchaser and the alleged sale in favour of the auction purchaser during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 will not confer any right in favour of the alleged auction purchaser beyond the outcome of the suit. In view of the mater it is not even necessary for hearing the said auction purchasers before granting relief to the Revision Petitioners in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No. 2332 of 2008. The principles of natural justice will not come into play in this case in view of the above findings and also in view of the exception to the above said rule on the ground of Doctrine of Empty Formality. When this Court finds that the very act of the Respondent bank in invoking SARFAESI proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit is illegal all further actions taken pursuant to such a proceeding will also be null and void and it will not confer any right upon the auction purchaser.
15.Now coming to the case in C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No. 535 of 2017 it is seen that it has been filed by the creditor bank under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and executable order dated 02.12.2016 passed in I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The suit in O.S.No.593 of 2014 seems to have been filed by Respondents 1 to 7 herein as against the Respondents 8 to 12 and the Revision Petitioner/ Creditor Bank for the relief of bare Injunction to restrain the Respondents from evicting them except by due process of Law from the tenanted premises which are the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004. The Revision Petitioner/ Creditor Bank had filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The learned District Munsif, Dindigul had passed a Fair and Executable Order on 02.12.2016 dismissing the I.A.No.797 of 2014 filed by the Revision Petitioner/ Creditor Bank. The Trial Court had held that the suit is maintainable even though the bank has invoked the SARFAESI Act and it has also held that the issues regarding whether the Plaintiffs are the tenants and whether the tenancy deeds are valid and genuine can be decided during the trial. The Revision Petitioner/ Creditor Bank have vehemently contented that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.
16.The Trial Court has rightly concluded that the suit is maintainable and the other aspects regarding the tenancy can be decided in the trial of the suit. The Hon?ble Apex Court in Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India & others reported in (2016)3 SCC 762 has held that neither the landlord nor the bank can be permitted to exploit the fact of non-registration of tenancy deed against the tenants. The Hon?ble Apex Court in Paragraph 37 of the above said Judgment has held hereunder:-
?37. It is a settled position of law that once tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the due process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant. A non obstante clause (Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act) cannot be used to bulldoze the statutory rights vested in the tenants under the Rent Control Act. The expression ?any other law for the time being in force? as appearing in Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act cannot mean to extend to each and every law enacted by the Central and State Legislatures. It can only extend to the laws operating in the same field?.
17.In view of the above, the suit in O.S.No.593 of 2014 is maintainable and it cannot be rejected at the threshold. Hence this Court finds no merit in C.R.P.(MD)(PD).No.535 of 2017 and it is liable to be dismissed.
18.As far as the relief to be granted to the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)(NPD).No.2332 of 2008 has to be considered by this Court. The way in which the creditor bank had conducted itself is not fair. The creditor bank cannot be allowed to pursue inconsistent remedies by continuously harassing the debtor and also by wasting the precious time of the Civil Court and this Court. The banks cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the Civil Court and the High Court for no purpose. There must be some sanctity and purpose for any proceeding before the Civil Court and the High Court in this Country in view of the constitutional status and primacy of these Courts. It is also to be taken note that the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Vimala Ben Ajith Bhai Patel Vs. Vatsala Ben Ashok Bhai Patel reported in 2008 (4) SCC 649 has glorified the right to property not only as a constitutional right but also a human right. The unnecessary bringing to sale of the property by bank not only causes monitory loss to the property holder but also brings shame, disgrace and affects sentiment and status. The Divisional Bench of this Court in Sheeba Philominal Merlin Vs. The Repatriates Coop Finance & Development Bank Ltd., has held that the Tribunal is not competent to look into violation of fundamental rights and constitutional rights and this Court being a custodian of constitutional rights is entitled to examine the matter. The violation and deliberate pursuing of inconsistent remedies especially when the debtor had came forward to honour the Civil Court Decree immediately go to the very root of the matter and therefore no protection or immunity could be claimed by any person including the so called auction purchasers. The auction purchasers of course have purchased the suit property in the auction during the pendency of the civil suit with ?as is where is condition?. When it is known to the auction purchaser that there is a civil suit and the proceedings are being continued in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 and also in A.S.(MD).No.217 of 2009, they cannot claim any protection beyond the outcome of the said proceedings by this Court. The alleged sale in favour of the auction purchasers should vanish at once when the entire proceedings resulting in an auction sale is found to be vitiated on so many grounds.
19.For the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.33 of 2004 dated 20.11.2008 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside. The Petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD).No.2332 of 2008 is directed to deposit the amount Decreed in O.S.No.33 of 2004 as modified in A.S.(MD)No.217 of 2009 after deducting Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul to the credit of the Decree in O.S.No.33 of 2004 dated 26.03.2008. The learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul is directed to receive the deposit forthwith and credit it to the account of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004. Upon deposit of the said amount the Respondent bank is entitled to withdraw the sum deposited. Upon proof of deposit of the above said sum, the Respondent bank should immediately return the bid amount with interest to the auction purchaser and the Sale Certificate shall be cancelled and the Sale deed dated 14.07.2008 will also stand cancelled and entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks. If the Revision Petitioner fails to deposit the decreetal amount as stated above, within the time prescribed he will not be entitled to any further relief.
20.For the reasons assigned above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul in I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 is not liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is confirmed.
21.Accordingly, (i) the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2332 of 2008 is allowed with the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(ii) the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD).No.535 of 2017 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
.