D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010. The writ petition was preferred by the present respondent nos. 2 and 3. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10th September, 2014 and hence, original respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix: These appellants (original respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010 had taken loan of sizeable amount from the respondent no.1-State Bank of India against which the immovable property was mortgaged. The loan amount was not paid by the appellants-borrowers and hence, mortgage suit was filed by the bank against these appellants bearing Mortgage Suit No. 21 of 1994 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi. The suit was decreed and legally payable amount was found at Rs.13,13,573/- plus interest at the rate of 18.75 per cent per annum. Because of new enactment viz. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993" for the sake of brevity), the matter was transferred to Patna in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and it was renumbered as Patna Transfer Case No. 138 of 1998. On 18th February, 2002, a certificate was issued for Rs. 13,13,573/- with interest at the rate of 18.75 per cent. The recovery proceedings were initiated. Again upon bifurcation of State of Jharkhand from the erstwhile State of Bihar, the case was again transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, being R.P. Case no. 140 of 2002. Order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 22nd March, 2005 for attachment of the mortgaged property of these appellants. This order was passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Direction was given to sale the mortgaged property by public auction on 7 th February, 2006. The date of auction of the mortgaged property was fixed on 21st March, 2006 and actual auction has taken place on 27th April, 2006. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 (original petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010), the highest bidders, had offered Rs. 27,31,000/- and the auction sale process was confirmed on 21st August, 2006. Possession of the mortgaged property was also taken over by respondent nos. 2 and 3 (original petitioners) on 26th August, 2006. Meanwhile, one Mrs. Bina Singh-respondent no.4 in this Letters Patent Appeal (respondent no.5 in the writ petition) claimed to be an owner of the property by virtue of agreement to sale dated 14th August, 2002. The so called consideration was by way of cash which is approximately Rs.4,50,000/-. This claim was brushed aside by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Judgment debtors i.e. present appellants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Patna Transfer Case No. 138 of 1998 for setting aside ex-parte decree. This contention was not accepted and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 2006 preferred by these appellants was dismissed vide order dated 1 st August, 2006 by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. One more Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred by these appellants (judgment debtors) being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for setting aside auction proceedings on the ground that so called compromise was arrived at with the bank on 21st March, 2006 for Rs. 9,95,767.93. As stated hereinabove, already an order for auction sale was passed on 7th February, 2006 and as the auction has already been taken place on 27th April, 2006 and as the possession of the property has also been taken over by the highest bidders (respondent nos. 2 and 3 in this Letters Patent Appeal) on 26th August, 2006 the said Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. The said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2006 was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Even otherwise also, the State Bank of India is fetching approximately three times the amount from the highest bidders. Against the orders passed in M.A. No. 28 of 2006 as well as M.A. No. 17 of 2006, both dated 1 st August, 2006, by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, an Appeal was preferred by these appellants before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata being Appeal No. 15 of 2008. This Appeal was allowed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata vide order dated 10th December, 2009 and the auction of the mortgaged property was set aside. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Debts Recovery Appellant Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 15 of 2008, the auction purchasers preferred the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010 before this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 10 th September, 2014 and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 15 of 2008 dated 10th December, 2009 was quashed and set aside. Hence, the judgment debtors-original respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants (original respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010): Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that these appellants are ready and willing to deposit compromised amount which is at Rs.9,95,767.93 with interest out of which Rs. 9,95,767.93 was already deposited with the State Bank of India on 21.03.2006. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1736 of 2010 dated 10th September, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This is the main and the only argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellants repeatedly. Nothing beyond this has been argued out by the counsel for the appellants. Despite the facts which are mentioned in para-4 of this Letters Patent Appeal about ex-parte order, passed by the learned Tribunal, but, after perusing the record of the writ petition by the counsel for the appellants, this ground has not been canvassed by the counsel for the appellants. Thus, what is written in para 4 of this Letters Patent Appeal has not been argued out by the counsel for the appellants. Counsel for the appellants is satisfied that there was a due representation of these appellants before the learned Single Judge by the Advocate.;