ORDER V.G. SABHAHIT, J.—These appeals are filed by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called as ‘KSFC’ for short) ‘the first respondent in W.P. Nos. 29679/09 and 30523/09 being aggrieved by the order date 26.10.2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by holding that the writ petitioner, is the first charge holder and the first respondent-appellant herein is the second charge holder in respect of the property and having regard to the settled law that only after the claim of the first charge holder is settled, the balance amount has to be paid to the second charge holder and appellant herein would step into for realising the amount which is due to it. Accordingly, set aside the order impugned in the Writ Petitions by order date 26.10.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter called as ‘DRT’ for brevity) in AOR No. 7/09. 2. The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRT in AOR No. 7/09 date 28.8.2009 contending that it was having first charge over the property in respect of which charge was created and thereafter second charge has been created in favour of the appellant herein. A proposal was made for accepting Rs. 1,75,00,000/- out of which Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs had to be paid on or before 19.2.2007 and the balance of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to be paid by 14.3.2007, since the amount was not deposited as per the said proposal which had been initially accepted by the borrower, the property was brought to sale for consideration of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- in the private sale. However, the said sale was set aside by the order of this Court in W.P. No. 9310/07 date 25.9.2007, wherein this Court accepted the contention that property ought to have been sold in public auction and not in private auction and directed that the property shall be sold in public auction. Thereafter, the property was sold in public auction for an amount of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. 3. It was the contention of the first respondent herein before the learned single Judge that since they hold the first charge, they are entitled to recover the amount that is due to them in a sum of Rs. 3,62,00,000/-. Thereafter, the property was sold in public auction for an amount of Rs. 3,75,00,000/-. 3. It was the contention of the first respondent herein before the learned single Judge that since they hold the first charge, they are entitled to recover the amount that is due to them in a sum of Rs. 3,62,00,000/-. The order passed in appeal filed by the appellant herein before the DRT holding that the claim of the first respondent herein has to be restricted to Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs. 1,87,00,000/- to be recovered by the appellant herein, cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties held that though there was a proposal for one time settlement by receiving Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, the amount due was more than Rs. 3,76,00,000/-. The amount which was agreed to be paid in the first instance, i.e., Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs had to be paid on or before 19.2.2007 and the balance of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to be paid by 14.3.2007, was not paid and an application was filed for extension of time for payment of the said amount. Thereafter, the sale which was held by private negotiation has been set aside by this Court and the amount of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- is realised in the second auction. Wherefore, the entire amount is liable to be appropriated by the first respondent-State Bank of India. Accordingly, since the appellant herein is the second charge holder, if any amount remains after recovery of the amount due to the first charge holder-first respondent herein, it is open to the second charge holder-appellant herein to realise the balance amount to be appropriated towards the amount to be paid to it. Accordingly, set aside the order passed by the DRT. Being aggrieved by the said order date 26.10.2009 this appeal is filed by the first respondent-KSFC and an application has been filed for production of additional documents. Since there is a delay of three days in filing the appeal, application is also filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the first sale by auction had realised in an amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and at the instance of the appellant in W.P. No. 9310/07 the said auction was set aside by order date 25.9.2007. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the first sale by auction had realised in an amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and at the instance of the appellant in W.P. No. 9310/07 the said auction was set aside by order date 25.9.2007. The said auction was for Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Wherefore, the first respondent must be deemed to have waived the right in excess of the amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Wherefore, out of the amount of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- realised in the second auction, the first respondent-Bank is entitled to Rs. 1,75,00,000/- as the first respondent has waived the right in respect of the balance amount while giving proposal one time settlement in the earlier sale. 6. The learned counsel has further submitted that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. He has also referred to the additional documents and submitted that the proposal for one time settlement was accepted and wherefore, the first respondent-bank must be deemed to have waived the amount due to be paid in excess of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. He has taken us through the contents of Exs. R1 to R7 in that behalf. 7. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinised the material on record. 8. The material, on record would clearly show that admittedly loan was taken by the borrower by creating the charge in favour of the State Bank of India-first respondent herein and that was the first charge created in respect of the property. The appellant herein “KSFC” has only second charge and the said fact is not disputed. The material on record would clearly show that there was a proposal for accepting one time settlement by receiving Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Though, the amount due was more than Rs. 3,76,00,000/-, the said proposal had been given and the auction held had realised an amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. The same has been set aside at the instance of the appellant in W.P. No. 9310/07 by order date 25.9.2007. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- was offered by the highest bidder in the second auction and the same has been accepted. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in view of the fact that the one time settlement of Rs. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- was offered by the highest bidder in the second auction and the same has been accepted. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in view of the fact that the one time settlement of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- had been accepted and first auction had fetched Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, the claim of the first respondent-Bank should be restricted to Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and the balance amount out of Rs. 3,62,00,000/- fetched by the second sale in the public auction should be allowed to be appropriated by the appellant. In view of the one time settlement offered and accepted by the borrower, the bank should be deemed to have waived their right for recovery of the amount in excess of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. Wherefore, the order passed by the DRT is justified and the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. 9. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs. Jaswant Singh and another, AIR 2007 SC 924 wherein, it is held that delay and latches in challenging the order regarding the retirement of Nigam employees at the age of 60 of 58 years since the Supreme Court had already granted the relief to continue up to the age of 60 years, the employees who retired at the age of 58 years were not vigilant and did not wake up to challenge and accepted the same. Therefore, they have waived their right and respondents acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. Benefit was confined to persons who have filed writ petitions before their retirement or they have obtained interim order before their retirement. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Rajgarhia vs. M/s. Mahavir Plantation Ltd. and others, (2006) 1 SCC 502 wherein, it is held that parties may enter into a settlement even in execution proceedings, compromise in the execution proceedings is valid in law and where the entire amount has been received as per the settlement, there is waiver of right. The above said decisions relied upon by the learned counter appearing for the appellant are not helpful to the appellant in the present case as it is clear from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam’s case that it relates to service matter and the Supreme Court has confined the benefit of extension of retirement age upto 60 years to those persons who had filed writ petitions before their retirement or who had obtained the interim order before their retirement and held that respondents therein have waived their right. The same is not helpful to the facts of the present case. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in N.K. Rajgarhia’s case is also not helpful to the appellant in the present ease as it is clear from Exs. R1 to R7 that payment was not made as per the one time settlement and borrower had sought time for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and since settlement has not been made as per one time settlement in this case, the said decision is also not helpful to the appellant. It is clear from the provisions of Sec.47 of the Transfer of Property Act that the rights of the second charge holder is always subject to realisation of the amount by the first charge holder and the second charge created in favour of the appellant herein is subject to the rights created in favour of the State Bank of India-first respondent. Wherefore, it is clear that questions as to whether the amount in excess of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- was waived by the proposal and acceptance of one time settlement, though such settlement did not come true since the settlement is not made as per the terms and whether there was acquiescence on the part of the Bank and the borrower in settling the claim by paying Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, are purely disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be gone into in these Writ Petitions and the said right has to be worked out in a competent Civil Court as the said questions requires detailed enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and enquiry cannot be done in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. 1,75,00,000/-, are purely disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be gone into in these Writ Petitions and the said right has to be worked out in a competent Civil Court as the said questions requires detailed enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and enquiry cannot be done in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Having regard to the above said facts and provision to Sec.47 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that the order passed by the learned single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-first respondent herein is entitled to recover the entire amount due to it and not only Rs. 1,75,00,000/-, realised in the second auction amounting to Rs. 3,62,00,000/-, is justified as admittedly first respondent-Bank is first charge holder and accordingly, we hold that no ground is made out for quashing the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in this intra Court appeal. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is disposed of. 11. We would have definitely condoned the delay of three days in filing the appeal. However, we have disposed of the appeal on merits and hence, it is unnecessary to issue notice to respondents and then condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits. Accordingly, Misc. W. 8341/10 is disposed of as unnecessary. Misc. W. 8342/10 for additional documents is also disposed of since the additional documents were already considered while considering the merits of the case and the same is unnecessary.