THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3881 of 2007 Date of order: 23.7.2010 Between: Syed Khadeer …Petitioner and The Authorised Officer (SARFAESI Act) and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 3881 of 2007 ORDER: Heard. The revision petitioner died during the pendency of the proceedings and an application vide C.R.P.M.P. No. 4196 of 2010 is filed to bring his legal representatives on record. The said application is ordered. The deceased-first revision petitioner had sought to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 75 days in presentation of the said appeal. The said application was rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam under the impugned order dated 13.7.2007, inter alia, on the ground that the said applicant did not approach the Tribunal before the sale of property and as the property was already auctioned and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others [1], the appeal after sale of property is not maintainable and accordingly the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision in Mardia Chemicals ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others (1st supra) does not prohibit filing of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and another Vs. M/s. Ashok Saw Mill [2] that every action taken by secured creditor in terms of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act onwards can be questioned before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the appeal filed by the present petitioner is maintainable. The said legal position is, therefore, well settled and the auction of the property in this case was, undoubtedly, held in terms of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable. Since the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, it is liable to be set side. The revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and IA No. 331 of 2007 is remitted to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for fresh consideration in accordance with law. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 23.7.2010 KR [1] (2004) 4 SCC 311 [2] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2420