LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal impugns the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge vide his order dated 16th September, 2005.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the controversy in the appeal may be noticed by us first. The Union Bank of India (for short, "the Bank") initiated the proceedings for recovery of loan against Govind Narain-the husband of the present appellant (for short, `the borrower') and the present appellant (for short, `the guarantor') under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, `the Act of 1993') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. On 24th August, 2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order/decree for an amount of Rs. 23,45,790. 74 along with interest @ 6% per annum against the borrower as well as the guarantor. The Debts Recovery Tribunal then issued a certificate of recovery against the appellant and her husband. On 17th July, 2002, in the execution proceedings, an order directing the sale of the house being House No. 43, Govind Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur belonging to the appellant was passed. The proclamation of sale was affixed on the property (house No. 43, Govind Nagar, Amer Road, Jaipur) on 3rd August, 2002. In was also affixed on the notice Board of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 25th July, 2002. In addition to these two modes of publication of proclamation of sale, the Recovery Officer also ordered the proclamation of sale to be published in the news paper which was done on 30th August, 2002. The sale took place on 4th September, 2002. In that sale, two bidders participated. The highest bid of Rs. 14,50,000/- given by the present respondents No. 3 and 4 was accepted. The 25% of the sale price was deposited by the purchasers through bankers cheque on the next day i. e. , 5th September, 2002 and the remaining 75% of the sale price was deposited on 19th September, 2002.
(3.) THE present appellant (one of the judgment debtors) made the application on 30th September, 2002 before the Recovery Officer raising diverse objections to the acceptance of the bid of respondents No. 3 and 4 by the auctioneer. THE Recovery Officer over-ruled the objections by his order dated 27th January, 2003. Aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer dated 27th January, 2003, the present appellant approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing the misc. appeal which came to be dismissed on 18th February, 2003. The present appellant then filed writ petition before the Single Judge which as noticed above was dismissed on 16th September, 2005. Hence, the appeal. ;