JUDGMENT : J.M. MALIK (Chairperson) 1. The Recovery Certificate was issued by the learned DRT on 5th February, 2002 in the sum of Rs.4,55,34,698.43 with future and pendente lite interest and costs with quarterly rests from 27th December, 2000 till the realisation of outstanding dues. The mortgaged properties of Shri C.B. J. Seth and his brother Shri G.B.J. Seth were attached. The Bank received a sum of Rs.75.86 lacs from the State of M.P., respondent No. 3 and discharged it from all the liabilities. The Recovery Officer vide its order dated 21st May, 2007 directed that auction of the property in dispute be conducted. The property belonging to the respondent G.B.J. Seth was auctioned. The learned DRT reversed the order passed by the Recovery Officer. Aggrieved by that order this second appeal has been preferred. 2. On 3rd March, 2007 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass the following orders: ...In the circumstances as agreed by learned Counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the DRT Allahabad on 10th August, 2007 and on that date the DRT Allahabad shall fix a date for final hearing of the petitioners appeal. The DRT Allahabad, shall decide the petitioners appeal on or before 12th September, 2007. Till the said appeal is decided the interim order dated 21st June, 2007 passed by this Court shall remain operative. It will be open for the proposed intervener to submit its objection before the DRT. As regards the money deposited by the auction purchaser proposed intervener before the Recovery Officer of the DRT, Jabalpur it is directed that the Recovery Officer shall remit the said amount to the respondent No. 1/Bank forthwith and on receipt of the respondent No. I/Bank shall deposit the same in TDR account. Needless to say that as stated by Mr. Rajesh Maindiretta, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that in case the DRT, Allahabad finds that on setting aside the auction sale the auction purchaser/proposed intervener is entitled to get back the amount, the same shall be redeposited with accrued interest by the respondent No. I/Bank with Recovery Officer within 10 days of the said decision. The petition stands disposed off with aforesaid directions. 3. In this Court the parties made vain attempts to enter into a compromise. In this case the auction of the property had fetched a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. The petition stands disposed off with aforesaid directions. 3. In this Court the parties made vain attempts to enter into a compromise. In this case the auction of the property had fetched a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. On 5th February, 2009 I passed the following orders: Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the intervener Mr. S.R. Solanki offers that his client Mr. Dhanpal Doshi is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.1.30 crores in the capacity of one of the bidders in the auction. He further submits that if the main Auction Purchaser ultimately agrees to go with the auction he will have to make way for him. Counsel for the auction purchaser submits that the auction with be acceptable to the auction purchaser only if he is given land measuring 5400 sq. feet for which he had deposited the amount. According to the Counsel for the Bank the land mentioned in the notification and its corrigendum dated 16th May, 2007 the area is 4163 sq. ft. which was mentioned in the corrigendum itself. The objections raised by the Counsel for the borrower are yet to be considered. Parties will get further opportunities to place their cases before the Court. However, in the interest of justice the intervener is permitted to be impleaded as a party subject to his depositing of Rs.1.30 crores with this Court and the said amount be deposited with the Bank concerned in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Allahabad in the shape of FDR for a period of six months renewable till the pendency of this appeal, without prejudice. The rights of the parties are yet to be determined. The said amount be deposited within one week, failing which the application of the intervener shall stand dismissed. Case be fixed for showing compliance of this order on 13th February, 2009. The other parties need not appear. However, in case of compliance of this order the appellant will file amended appeal by 19th February, 2009. Final arguments will also be heard on 19th February, 2009. 4. On 19th February, 2009 I passed the following orders: Counsel for the parties, present. Heard, Counsel for the borrowers Shri Rakesh Saxena after some arguments wants to produce a buyer who can give better price than Rs.1.30 crore offered by Shri Dhanpal Doshi who is being represented by Mr. S.R. Solanki. 4. On 19th February, 2009 I passed the following orders: Counsel for the parties, present. Heard, Counsel for the borrowers Shri Rakesh Saxena after some arguments wants to produce a buyer who can give better price than Rs.1.30 crore offered by Shri Dhanpal Doshi who is being represented by Mr. S.R. Solanki. Let him do so and if he is unable to bring some better buyer, he will not place any objection and he will have no objection in selling the property for a sum of Rs.1.30 crore in favour of Shri Dhanpal Doshi. It may also be noticed that during the auction the/property was auctioned for a sum of Rs.1.20 crore. Counsel for the auction purchaser is ready to receive auction price and part with possession to the new buyer Shri Dhanpal Doshi or any other one. The only request made by Counsel for the auction purchaser is that the Bank be directed to return his money i.e., 1.20 crore along with interest forthwith. As prayed by the Counsel for the borrower case is adjourned to 9th March, 2009. The borrower is directed to ask the fresh buyer to deposit the money with State Bank of Indore by 9th March, 2009 without prejudice which should be over and above Rs.1.30 crore. As prayed, this case be taken up at Camp Court at Jabalpur on 9th March, 2009. Certified copy be furnished to the Counsel for the parties by tomorrow. 5. The above said order sheets specially dated 19th February, 2009 were signed by all the parties including the borrower. This Court could not hold the Camp Court at Jabalpur on 9th March, 2009. The borrower could not produce a better buyer and no money was deposited with the State Bank of Indore as per direction given by this Court on 19th February, 2009. 6. Vide my order dated 9th March, 20091 passed a detailed order wherein it was stated that holding of Camp Court was cancelled, after due notice was published and the Court was ordered to be held at Allahabad. It was noted that 65 bidders had participated in the auction sale in question. By placing reliance on Apex Court authority in a case reported in 302068 I accepted the prayer of Shri Dhanpal Doshi and others and directed that the sale in his favour be confirmed. It was noted that 65 bidders had participated in the auction sale in question. By placing reliance on Apex Court authority in a case reported in 302068 I accepted the prayer of Shri Dhanpal Doshi and others and directed that the sale in his favour be confirmed. In the said order dated 9th March, 2009 it was specifically mentioned: However, before confirming the sale the Recovery Officer would call upon the intervenes and the Bank to file affidavits to the effect that the borrowers or any body on their behalf could not deposit a sum more than Rs.1 crore 30 lacs as directed by this Court till 9th March, 2009 in order to remove even a scintilla of doubt about the same. 7. In the meantime the borrower approached the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 9th April, 2009 permitted the respondents to/withdraw the petition filed before it, but gave liberty to the borrower to approach this Court for setting aside the ex parte order and stayed the dispossession of the borrower till 24th April, 2009. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The argument urged by the learned Counsel for the borrower-respondent has the following six prongs. To top it all, he has submitted that Counsel for the intervener Mr. S. Ranjan Solanki, Advocate has not filed the Vakalatnama and intervener has not filed any application. 9. I am unable to cotton with these feckless arguments. Vakalatnama as well as application each dated 5th September, 2008 filed by Mr. S. Ranjan Solanki on 5th September, 2008 is on the record. 10. Counsel for the borrower drew my attention towards the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 21st June, 2007. Its relevant extract reads as follows: Until further orders the respondent shall not issue sale certificate pursuant to the auction held on 21st May, 2007 of the property of the petitioners. The learned Counsel argued that this Court has committed the contempt of Court by ordering the issuance of the sale certificate. In this respect the attention of the Court was invited towards the authorities reported in M. V. Janardan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank 2008 (3) C.L.R. 12 (S.C.) and 788888. 11. The learned Counsel argued that this Court has committed the contempt of Court by ordering the issuance of the sale certificate. In this respect the attention of the Court was invited towards the authorities reported in M. V. Janardan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank 2008 (3) C.L.R. 12 (S.C.) and 788888. 11. I find considerable force in the arguments urged by the appellant and intervenor to the effect that the above said writ pending before the Hon’ble High Court already stands disposed of. In this context they have invited my attention to the subsequent order passed by the same Hon’ble Judge, which also mentions about the proceeding dated 21 st June, 200. The said order was passed on 30th July, 2007. It is being reiterated to understand the position clearly: In the circumstances as agreed by learned Counsel for the parties this petition is disposed of directing the parties to appear before the DRT, Allahabad on 1st August, 2007 and on that date the DRT, Allahabad shall fix a date for final hearing of the petitioners appeal. The DRT, Allahabad, shall decide the petitioners appeal on or before 12th September, 2007. Till the said appeal is decided the interim order dated 21st June, 2007 passed by this Court shall remain operative. It will be open for the proposed intervenor to submit its objection before the DRT. 12. Under these circumstances the stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court was to be operative till 27th August, 2007 when the order was passed by the learned DRT. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondent raised five objections, viz. Intervenor Shri Dhanpal Doshi has no locus standi to file the instant application, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application, this is the case of this-description of the case property, the value was not properly fixed, order passed by the Recovery Officer is ante-dated and as per relief claimed by the appellant Bank, the entire appeal has become infructuous. 14. Regarding mis-description of the property in question, the attention of the Court was invited towards notice of settling the sale proclamation issued under Form No. 17 under Rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein it was clearly mentioned that plot No. 32 situated at Survey No. 1309/2, Gulmohar Colony, Village Khajrana, Indore measuring 5400 sq. ft. belonging to Shri Govind Seth. ft. belonging to Shri Govind Seth. However, subsequently, the said area was reduced to 4163 sq. ft. The Recovery Officer vide corrigendum clarified this fact. It was mentioned that by mistake the area was mentioned as 5400 sq. ft. while actually it was 4163 sq. fit. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that this is misdescription of the property and the Recovery Officer had no power to issue such like corrigendum. In order to bring his point home, he has cited following few authorities. These are reported as 282108; 260622; 259050 and 163384. It was held in these authorities that misdescription of the property is a material irregularity. 16. The above said authorities are not applicable to the present case. In this regard clarification was made by the Recovery Officer consequently, the question of misdescription does not arise. It appears that this objection was raised merely for the sake of cavil. 17. It was also argued that the decree cannot be amended. This argument too lacks conviction. The Recovery Officer or the DRT can always correct the typographical mistake. It is well settled that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either by its own motion or on an application of any of the parties. See Section 152 of C.P.C. The Recovery Officer or the DRT has got suo motu powers to correct such like mistakes. Consequently, I attach no importance with this feeble argument. 18. It was also argued on behalf of the borrowers that the appellant has no locus standi to file this application. He has referred to a case which is reported in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1999 (3) Supreme 15 . 19. I see no merit in this argument. The impugned order has passed keeping in view Apex Court authority report in Syndicate Banks. Estate Officer and Manager (Recoveries) (supra). The facts of this case were these. The Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation. The highest bidder made offer in the sum of Rs.42.40 crores for the land. His offer was, ultimately, cancelled as price not deposited in time. Consequently, another applicant deposited entire amount by pay order. The sale confirmation was challenged. Estate Officer and Manager (Recoveries) (supra). The facts of this case were these. The Recovery Officer issued sale proclamation. The highest bidder made offer in the sum of Rs.42.40 crores for the land. His offer was, ultimately, cancelled as price not deposited in time. Consequently, another applicant deposited entire amount by pay order. The sale confirmation was challenged. There were no other bidders who were in a position to match the offer with positive result. Consequently, sale in favour of the applicant was confirmed. 20. Consequently, the applicant has got locus standi to file the present application and this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the matter. 21. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the property was sold at a lower price and the valuation of the land was not property fixed. This was also argued that no effort was made to fetch highest value of the auctioned property. The Counsel for the respondent has also cited following authorities. The learned Counsel opined that his abovesaid contention draws support from authorities reported in Umakant Mishra (dead) through LRs. v. Dinanath Prasad Shah (dead) through LRs. : (2001) 9 SCC 493 ; 285032 and 287643 . 22. This is a misplaced criticism. It must be borne in mind that the best auction purchase bidder gave bid in the sum of Rs.1.20 crore. Vide my order dated 5th February, 2009, Mr. Dhanpal Doshi appeared and offered to deposit a sum of Rs.1.30 crores in the capacity of one of the bidders in the auction. He also agreed that in case, the main auction purchaser ultimately agrees to pay that much payment he would withdraw in his favour. He was directed to deposit Rs.1.30 crores with this Court. 23. On 19th February, 2009, the borrower made another offer that he wanted to produce a buyer who could pay more than Rs.1.30 crores. The borrower was given time to produce any buyer by 9th March, 2009 and the borrower was directed to deposit the money more than Rs.1.30 crores directly to the State Bank of Indore by 9th March, 2009. It was also agreed that in case the borrower is unable to bring some better buyer, he would not place any objection and he would have no objection in selling the property for a sum of Rs.1.30 crore in favour of Shri Dhanpal Doshi. It was also agreed that in case the borrower is unable to bring some better buyer, he would not place any objection and he would have no objection in selling the property for a sum of Rs.1.30 crore in favour of Shri Dhanpal Doshi. The said order sheet is signed by all the parties including the borrower. 24. Neither fresh buyer was produced nor any amount was deposited with the Bank. 25. On 21st April, 2009, the borrower made further request that one months time be granted to him so that he might be able to deposit more amount than Rs.1.30 crore. As desired by the borrower, his statement was recorded and it was also ordered that till the next date of hearing the status quo in respect of the property in dispute be maintained. The case was fixed for 4th May, 2009. On 4th May, 2009, reply was filed by the opposite parties and the case was fixed for hearing on 15th May, 2009. On 15th May, 2009, the learned Counsel for the borrower did not appear and so the case was adjourned on payment of costs. The case was adjourned to 3rd July, 2009, it was ordered that status quo be maintained. From 3rd July, 2009 the case was further adjourned to 27th July, 2009, 31st August, 2009, 22nd September, 2009 and finally on 12th October, 2009 when the Camp Court was held at Jabalpur. It is, thus, crystal clear that lenient views were taken to help the borrower. He always failed to live up to his commitments. The payment of loan cannot be kept in abeyance. The time was extended from time-to-time out of the way. 26. At the time of the final arguments, the borrowers submitted a copy of the application addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Indore dated 8th October, 2009 wherein, the offer for OTS of total dues was made and following reliefs were claimed: 1. Your Bank would be paid a sum of Rs.2 crores which is the maximum possible value of the Guarantors property, by way of a deposit in a no-lien third party account. As desired by DRAT Rs.1.31 crores would be paid towards release of our property situated at Plot No. 32, Gulmoar Colony, Indore and the Balance would be paid towards release of the entire title documents of the company and the other guarantors. 2. As desired by DRAT Rs.1.31 crores would be paid towards release of our property situated at Plot No. 32, Gulmoar Colony, Indore and the Balance would be paid towards release of the entire title documents of the company and the other guarantors. 2. Your Bank would be required to issue a letter of acceptance of the OTS, subject to confirmation by the DRAT so that the title of the property situated at 32, Gulmoar Colony, Indore is returned back to us and Rs.1.30 crores is refunded to Mr. Dhanpal Doshi. Your appeal before DRAT would be compromised and withdrawn. 3. Your Bank would agree to release the entire assets of all the guarantors and the company on receipt of OTS amount and would state the same in their letter of acceptance. Your Bank would give us a no dues certificate on receipt of the settlement amount so that the same can be filed before the Court to end all pending litigation. 27. The learned Counsel conceded at bar that the borrower has not yet deposited more amount than Rs.1.30 crores because they do not have the documents of the said property. 28. It is, thus, crystal clear that enough time was granted to the borrower to pay off the loan. This appeal was filed in this Court on 3rd September, 2007 and this Court is supposed to dispose of the case filed before it within six months from the date of its filing as per Section 20(6) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. 29. The recovery application was filed as back as in the year 2000. The loan was advanced during eighties. No effort was made by the borrower to pay off the loan. 30. It must be borne in mind that vide order dated 19th February, 2009, the borrower had agreed that either he would produce better buyer or he would have no objection, if the property is sold to Shri Dhanpal Doshi for a sum of Rs.1.30 crores. The Apex Court in a case reported as 273814 was pleased to hold: 56. Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, not only permits a partial compromise and adjustment of a suit by a lawful agreement but further gives a mandate to the Court to record it and pass a decree in terms of such compromise or adjustment insofar as it relates to the suit. Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, not only permits a partial compromise and adjustment of a suit by a lawful agreement but further gives a mandate to the Court to record it and pass a decree in terms of such compromise or adjustment insofar as it relates to the suit. If the compromise agreement was lawful and as we shall presently discuss it was so the decree to the extent it was a consent decree, was not appealable because of the express bar in Section 96(3) of the Code. 59. Be that as it may, the bar to an appeal against a consent decree in Sub-section (3) of Section 96 of the CPC is based on the broad principle of estoppel. It presupposes that the parties to an action can, expressly or by implication, waive or forgo their right of appeal by any lawful agreement or compromise, or even conduct. Therefore, as soon as the parties made the agreement to abide by the determination in the appeal (A.S. 668) and induced the Court to pass a decree in terms of that agreement, the principle of estoppel underlying Section 96(3) became operative and the decree to the extent it was in terms of that agreement, became final and binding between the parties. And, it was an effective in creating an estoppel between the parties as a judgment on contest. Thus, the determination in A.S. 668 that Kadakalla was not an ‘estate’ became as much binding on the respondents, as on the parties in that appeal. 31. The borrower has already been given a long rope. He has waddled out of his commitment made before this Court time and again. His attempt to move OTS at this late stage is of no consequence. The said application is delayed by more than 25 years. Court has nothing to do with OTS. See Udaysing Shamraq Chavan v. Ratanakar Bank Ltd. l (2007) BC 176 and 142287 Allahabad High Court. However, if the OTS is moved before the auction proceedings or earlier to that, the Court has to give the reasonable time. The plea submitted to this Court at the eleventh hour is nothing but a ruse to make sure the time would be extended. If it was a guileless move, money should have been deposited on the nail. The proposed one month’s time strung out to six months and without any result. The plea submitted to this Court at the eleventh hour is nothing but a ruse to make sure the time would be extended. If it was a guileless move, money should have been deposited on the nail. The proposed one month’s time strung out to six months and without any result. This is a procrastinating tactic. All the arguments in this context are lame of strength. 32. In the light of above discussion, I accept the appeal filed by the appellant Bank. The sale had already been confirmed in favour of Shri Dhanpal Doshi. The stay or status quo granted in favour of the borrower stands vacated. There shall be no orders as to costs. The appeal stands disposed of. 33. Copies of this judgment be given to the parties as per law. Another copy together with records be dispatched to the learned DRT forthwith. Application disposed of