DBSAW No.351/2009 Hanuman Agarwal Vs. DRT & Ors. 1 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.351/2009 Hanuman Agarwal Vs. Debt Recovery Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 13.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. Mr. MS Purohit, for the appellant. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent no.3- bank advanced the loan to the borrower Manohar Lal and, thereafter, initiated recovery proceedings and in that recovery proceedings, initiated the proceeding to auction mortgaged property of Manohar Lal in pursuance of the order obtained from the DRT dated 17.12.2008. The case of the appellant-writ petitioner is that he entered into agreement to purchase the house from Manohar Lal vide agreement dated 4th Nov., 2008 and he paid Rs.21,000/- to Manohar Lal – borrower in cash and also gave a cheque of Rs. 3 lacs to the bank against the loan amount of Manohar Lal. It is said that the appellant offered the consideration of Rs.8 lacs for the same property which in fact, has been DBSAW No.351/2009 Hanuman Agarwal Vs. DRT & Ors. 2 sold out by the recovery officer for a consideration of Rs.7,55,000/- only. According to learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner since the appellant-petitioner offered the amount of Rs.8 lacs, therefore, the respondent should not have auctioned the property in Rs.7,55,000/- only and he also stated that the writ petitioner-appellant was prevented from taking part in the auction. In these facts and circumstances, the present writ petitioner preferred the writ petition and prayed that the auction of the property for a consideration referred above of Rs.7,55,000/- in favour of the respondent no.5 may be quashed. The respondents nos. 1 to 3 may be directed to consider the offer of the petitioner for higher sum of Rs.8 lacs or in alternative the respondents nos. 1 to 3 be directed to re-auction the property under consideration and petitioner be offered opportunity to bid the amount offered by the highest bidder and auction be made in favour of the petitioner. Learned Single Judge by impugned order dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner in limine, hence, this special appeal. DBSAW No.351/2009 Hanuman Agarwal Vs. DRT & Ors. 3 Admittedly, Manohar lal is borrower and facing a recovery proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dated 17.12.2008 then the appellant-petitioner total claim is that he entered into an agreement to purchase the property and it is settled law that mere agreement to sell creates no right, title or interest in favour of the purchaser. Therefore, the petitioner-appellant had no right to claim any benefit because of the agreement dated 4th Nov., 2008. So far as the respondents' right to sell the property of the borrower is concerned, the petitioner's contention that he was prevented from taking part in the auction proceedings is a disputed questions of fact, which is not required to be adjudicated in the facts of the case. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (VINEET KOTHARI),J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-