1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8815 OF 2007 Ananda Nivruti Mohite .. Petitioner Versus Hindustan Coop.Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Khankar for petitioner Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for respondent No.1 Mr.Sameer Patil for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18th March 2008 P.C. . Petition is disposed of by consent of parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Special Recovery Officer, dated 3rd 2 August 2007 and that of the Divisional Joint Registrar passed on 11th October 2007. 2. Petitioner claims to be the borrower. He admits that recovery certificate was issued but in execution of the recovery certificate, respondent No.1 bank has moved special recovery officer and respondent No.2 who has proceeded to auction the property. The auction is vitiated by an irregularity as more particularly pointed out in the application preferred before the second respondent. The grievance is that the application is rejected not just on the ground of limitation but also on merits. If the limitation was the only issue, then, there was no occasion to go into the merits of the controversy. Further, the Divisional Joint Registrar has, while dismissing the revision application observed that the petitioner has nowhere stated that the property was sold for less than market value, resulting into any loss to him. Thus 3 irregularity in the sale could not be pointed out. 3. Petitioner has challenged these orders and contended that there is enough material to show that the sale is vitiated. However, his objections have been rejected only on the ground of limitation. There was no up-set price which was fixed. In such circumstances, one last opportunity be given to the petitioner to substantiate his pleas. 4. Petitioner is present in court and he makes a statement through his counsel that within eight weeks from today, he will deposit Rs.3 lakhs with respondent No.2. If the same is deposited, respondent No.1 shall without in any manner being influenced by his earlier order dated 3rd August 2007, decide the application which is preferred by the applicant - petitioner on 31st July 2007. If no compliance is made with 4 the statement, then, the impugned order stands and all objections to the sale cannot be raised any longer. In that event, even this petition would stand dismissed without any further reference to the court. If compliance is made, Authorities to act as above and without being influenced by the earlier orders mentioned above. All contentions insofar as sale being irregular of both sides are kept open. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)