Allahabad Bank and others .....Respondents ..... Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi ..... Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Verma, Mr. H.S. Jagdev and Ms. Deepshikha Gupta, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1Bank. Mr. Ranjit Chawla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. ..... M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. The background facts Petitioner No.1 is the Company and petitioners No.2 and 3 are its Directors. Petitioner No.1 had availed certain credit facilities from the Allahabad Bank (respondent No.1) and petitioners No.2 and 3 stood its guarantors. The residential House No.758, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Faridabad of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was mortgaged to the respondentBank alongwith hypothecation of stock, plant and machinery. The loan account of petitioner No.1 was classified as a Non Performing Assets ( for short 'NPA') on 31.10.2017. 1 of 40 ::: Downloaded on 24122021 02:54:32 ::: CWP No.6402 of 2019 (O&M) [2] Thereafter, respondentBank issued notice dt. 23.11.2017 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') demanding payment of `2,62,98,047.72. The respondentBank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Faridabad. On 14.06.2018, the said application was allowed and the respondentBank was permitted to take physical possession of the residential house of the petitioners. Since the possession was not being delivered, the respondentBank filed CWP No.565 of 2019 before this Court impleading the petitioners herein as respondents No.3 to 5. Notice of motion was issued for 15.02.2019 by this Court. But on 14.02.2019, the officials of the respondentBank along with the Tehsildar, Faridabad, went to the residential house of the petitioners to take possession. At that time, the 2nd petitioner gave a letter dt.14.2.2019 to Tehsildar, Faridabad that he will himself give possession of the property within 15 days and undertook to repay whole amount due to respondentBank within 90 days. But the possession of the property was taken by the respondentBank on 14.02.2019 in spite of the said letter. In CWP No.565 of 2019, the 2nd petitioner filed an affidavit of undertaking (AnnexureP.3) to clear outstanding amount within 3 months from 15.02.2019 and sought restoration of the house of the petitioners. He also undertook to deposit `70 Lacs within one month and rest of the amount 2 of 40 ::: Downloaded on 24122021 02:54:33 ::: CWP No.6402 of 2019 (O&M) [3] within 3 months. He stated that if he has not been able to clear the outstanding dues within 3 months, he would vacate the residential house and hand over peaceful vacant possession to the authorized officer of the respondentBank. The same was taken on record on 15.02.2019. Matter was adjourned to 25.02.2019 On 25.02.2019, the 2nd petitioner appeared before this Court, and to show petitioners' bona fides, produced two demand drafts of `25 Lacs each (Total `50 Lacs) before this Court and they were handed over to the counsel representing the respondentBank. By that time, auction notice dt. 22.02.2019 (AnnexureP.5) was issued by the respondentBank proposing to sell residential property of the petitioners fixing the date of auction as 28.03.2019. The present Writ Petition Petitioners then filed the present Writ Petition to quash the auction notice dt. 22.02.2019 (AnnexureP.5). They contended that they had paid a sum of `30 Lacs on July 2018 apart from