Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The respondent-Karur Vusua Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) having taking action under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) and the said action, having been affirmed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the DRT), Coimbatore in O.A.(S).No.76 of 2006, by order dated 20.2.2007, and also having been affirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (the DRAT), Chennai on the appeal preferred u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners-borrowers challenges the impugned order dated 37. 2008 passed by the DRAT, Chennai in IN (SARFAESI) No.160 of 2007, in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It appears that there were three borrowers viz., (i)M/s.RBRA Funds, (ii) M/s.Vijaya Finance and (iii) R.P.Pandurangan, who availed separate loan(s) with grant of credit facility, from the respondent-Bank. The secured asset(s) in question were guaranteed by the guarantor(s) in respect of all the three loans. 3. Since all the three borrowers failed to repay the due amounts, the respondent-Bank issued separate notice(s) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 4. As the petitioners-borrowers failed to reply, the respondent-Bank issued the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, for possession of the secured asset(s) mentioned in the notice already issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. 5. Subsequently, the petitioners-borrowers jointly preferred the appeal (application) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, Coimbatore. The petitioners-borrowers, having failed to show any irregularity in taking the possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT, Coimbatore, dismissed the Original Application, which was also affirmed by the DRAT, Chennai in the appeal jointly preferred by the petitioners-borrowers, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. .6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers submitted that the .One Time Settlement (for short, the OTS) as was earlier agreed upon by the respondent-Bank on 16. 2006, but the due amount(s) could not be paid in time. 7. .6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers submitted that the .One Time Settlement (for short, the OTS) as was earlier agreed upon by the respondent-Bank on 16. 2006, but the due amount(s) could not be paid in time. 7. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers that no ground has been made out for taking action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and the action of the respondent-Bank is mala-fide, as the respondent-Bank refused the offer of the petitioners-borrowers to deposit the due amount(s) by selling the property(ies) in question to the proposed purchaser(s) and hence the respondent-Bank is bent upon to evict the petitioners-borrowers from the residential house, though the other property(ies) worth several crores of rupees have been mortgaged and the petitioners-borrowers want to repay the due amount(s) by selling the other property(ies). 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank refuted the allegation of mala-fide as was contended by the petitioners-borrowers. 9. In the absence of any pleading, we are not inclined to entertain the submissions as was made on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers requested the Court to allow the petitioners-borrowers to settle the dispute with the respondent-Bank, either by way of the OTS or by selling one of the mortgaged properties to the petitioners-borrowers/proposed purchaser(s), who have given the best offer. 11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 12. From the submission as was made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the documents available on record, we find that the action as was taken by the respondent-Bank u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, has been in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act/Rules framed thereunder, as individual notice(s) were issued to the petitioners-borrowers u/s 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act, showing the details, in terms of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, but the objection/reply having not been filed by the petitioners-borrowers, the respondent-Bank had to take action u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 13. In the aforesaid background, if the action of the respondent-Bank had been affirmed by the DRT/Coimbatore—DRAT-Chennai, it requires no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Civil Revision Petition. 14. 13. In the aforesaid background, if the action of the respondent-Bank had been affirmed by the DRT/Coimbatore—DRAT-Chennai, it requires no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Civil Revision Petition. 14. So far as the offer as was given by the petitioners-borrowers, is concerned, according to us, the respondent-Bank should settle the dispute at an early date. For one or other dispute, the respondent-Bank could not recover the due amount(s) in question, as the mortgaged property(ies) have not yet been auction-sold. 115. It is always open for the petitioners-borrowers to request the secured creditor-respondent-Bank, not to auction-sell the property(ies) by repaying the due amount(s) of the respondent-Bank, together with cost(s)/charge(s)/expenses incurred u/s 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners-borrowers can take advantage of the same before the date fixed for the sale/transfer of the property(ies) in question. 116. We have noticed the grievance highlighted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-borrowers that a sum of Rs.40 lakhs was deposited pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and the said amount of Rs.40 lakhs has yet not been adjusted by the respondent-Bank. If that be so, the petitioners-borrowers are at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the respondent-Bank, which in their turn, may inform the petitioners-borrowers the present due amount(s) together with costs/charges/expenses, provided the petitioners-borrowers intend to deposit the due amount(s) u/s 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. If any such offer u/s 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is given by the petitioners-borrowers within ten days, the respondent-Bank may give the details of the present due amount(s) and the other expenses, within one week thereafter. If the petitioners-borrowers deposit such due amount(s) within 15 days thereafter, the petitioners-borrowers may take the advantage of the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. .17. So far as the suggestion made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-borrowers to sell the secured asset(s) to third party to re-pay the amount(s) due to the respondent-Bank, is concerned, we cannot allow the petitioners-borrowers to sell such property(ies) directly, in view of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. .17. So far as the suggestion made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-borrowers to sell the secured asset(s) to third party to re-pay the amount(s) due to the respondent-Bank, is concerned, we cannot allow the petitioners-borrowers to sell such property(ies) directly, in view of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. When once the respondent-Bank has taken the possession or taken over the management of the property(ies) in question under the provisions of 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners-borrowers/guarantors/owner of the secured asset(s), cannot sell any of the secured asset(s), as the possession of the secured asset(s) vest with the secured creditor-respondent-Bank u/s 13(6) of the SARFAESI Act. 118. However, if the petitioners-borrowers intend to sell the property(ies) to the proposed purchaser(s)/third party, then, in such a case, the petitioners-borrowers may inform the same to the secured creditor-Bank to sell a particular property to the proposed purchaser(s) and if the proposed purchaser(s) makes an offer, then the proposed purchaser(s) can straightaway deposit the amount(s) to the secured creditor-respondent-Bank and clear their dues. If the due amount(s) are so cleared, the respondent-Bank, instead of making the auction-sale of the other secured asset(s), may release the document(s) of the particular secured asset(s) to enable the petitioners-borrowers to execute the sale deed in favour of the proposed purchaser(s)-third party. 119. If the petitioners-borrowers want to sell any one of the secured asset(s) in question, to the proposed purchaser(s)-third party, then, they may do so asking the proposed purchaser(s)-third party to deposit the total due amount(s) directly or through the petitioners-borrowers to the respondent-Bank within four weeks and in such a case, if the respondent-Bank gets the full value as per their valuation of the secured asset(s), the Bank will release the document(s) and shall issue "no objection certificate" to enable the petitioners-borrowers to sell the property(ies)-secured asset(s) to the proposed purchaser(s)-third party. On failure, it will be open for the respondent-Bank to auction-sell the secured asset(s) after wide publication in the newspaper(s). 120. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that in case the respondent-Bank want to auction sale any of the secured asset, should first take steps for the auction-sale of the non-residential property(ies) in question and may auction-sell the residential property(ies) in question lastly, if the total due amount(s) are not recovered. 121. 120. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that in case the respondent-Bank want to auction sale any of the secured asset, should first take steps for the auction-sale of the non-residential property(ies) in question and may auction-sell the residential property(ies) in question lastly, if the total due amount(s) are not recovered. 121. At the stage of auction-sale, if any illegality comes to the notice of the petitioners-borrowers, it will be open for the petitioners-borrowers to move before appropriate forum. 122. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the parties/parties, immediately. 20.23. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations/directions. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous petition is closed.