Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Rule. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is not a party before the lower court, for the prayer to quash and set aside the order below Exh. 58 in Special Darkhast No. 12/2009 dated 11.5.2011 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Patan, at Annexure-N, on the grounds and contentions set out in detail in the memo of the petition. 2. The facts of the case as narrated in detail has a chequered history which has been sought to be placed on record with documentary evidences by all the sides. However, as it appears, there are two banks, Sidhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., and Shree Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., and as could be seen from the record, particularly the litigation including the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010 as well as other documents like the registered sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner by Shree Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank where he claims to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in auction sale by the said bank. There is a reference about the subsequent events which have taken place in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010 where the learned counsel appearing had specifically brought it to the notice of the court that the transaction has taken place and subsequent development has taken place after the initial order was passed. It is also required to be mentioned that contentions have been raised by the petitioner that he has not been heard, nor any opportunity has been given and even before the authority, while deciding the revision application, the order is passed behind his back. Hence, the present petition has been filed for the grounds stated in detail in the memo of this petition. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Hence, the present petition has been filed for the grounds stated in detail in the memo of this petition. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Shirish Joshi has referred to the papers in detail to establish how the sequence of events have taken place that in a Lavadi Case the execution proceedings has taken place which is produced at page 283 and on the basis thereof, ultimately, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner which is produced at page 29 which clearly refers to the fact that no dispute or injunction order is passed by any court with regard to this property and in case of any proceedings, it will be the responsibility of the bank (Shree Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank). It also refers to the fact that possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, when the Receiver made an attempt to take possession of the property which is claimed by the petitioner as a bona fide purchaser for value in an auction sale by the court, and he has spent the money and possession has been handed over to him after execution of the registered sale deed, he had lodged objections dated 26.5.2011 which is at Annexure-B. It is required to be mentioned that no due certificate (NOC) has also been issued by the bank/liquidation officer. 4. Therefore, learned counsel Mr. Joshi has stated that any order, including the impugned order, which is passed behind his back is in gross violation of the rules of natural justice and an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner for which he has referred to further details about the manner in which both the banks and the officer appointed by the bank have conducted themselves. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi has also pointedly referred to the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank which is at Annexure-O at page 475, which is a subsequent resolution, clearly mentioning about the fact of having accepted the money towards the consideration in auction sale and having handed over the possession of the property in question to the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi has pointedly referred to Resolution No. 102 by the same Bank at page 426 dated 27.10.2010 and having noticed with regard to the fact that they had initially disputed the right of the petitioner, but subsequently they have passed Resolution Nos. 104, 105, 106 at Annexure-O. 6. Therefore, it is evident, prima facie, that the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser for value without notice in an auction sale by the court of which a reference is also to be found in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010. 7. A contention has been raised by learned counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta for Respondent No. 1-Bank that the petitioner cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In support of his submission, he has pointedly referred to the interim order passed in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010 at page 305 and also the subsequent order passed by his court in the said petition at page 342 dated 30.3.2010 and submitted that the interim order has merged in the final order and once the order is passed which clearly suggests that the parties were directed to maintain status-quo and still, as it is evident, the transaction has taken place including the payment and execution of the sale deed and therefore it is contrary to the order passed by this Court. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the petitioner was sitting on the fence. He has been eager to watch and he had an option but he did not exercise the option and he chose to wait and opt out from such proceedings and therefore he has to face the consequences and cannot claim or complain about violation of rules of natural justice or that no opportunity has been given to him or the order has been passed behind his back. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot complain about the violation of rules of natural justice in light of this specific case for which he has also referred to the details to empahsise that the sale is collusive and therefore he cannot be permitted to take advantage. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of State Bank of India and ors. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of State Bank of India and ors. vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and ors., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 316 and submitted that the court is required to consider whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner. He has also referred to the judgment in the case of Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement and anr., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 255 , and submitted that when he has an opportunity or right he cannot be a silent spectator. He emphasized the observations made therein to submit that there must have caused a real prejudice to the complainant and therefore the present petition may not be entertained. 10. Alternatively, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that if the court is so inclined, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties, the matter may be remanded back for deciding afresh after hearing all concerned including the petitioner. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah has appeared for Respondent No. 8 and supported the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Nehal Joshi appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Mehta. However, he submitted that even if the matter is remanded back, the Receiver may continue. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri for Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the petitioner was aware about the pending proceedings and therefore he cannot complain that he was not aware and he has adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Mehta. 14. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained or not. 15. Though the submissions have been made, it transpires from the material and evidence including the documentary evidence placed on record by all concerned that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser without notice in auction sale by the court for which a reference is to be found in the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010. Further, possession of the property is also handed over. Further, possession of the property is also handed over. Moreover, it is also stated in the recital of the sale deed between the petitioner and Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank that in case of any dispute or litigation, the petitioner would not be liable and it will the liability of the bank. 16. It is required to be mentioned that in an earlier proceeding, that is, the revision before the authority, the authority concerned ought to have decided and perused the papers which would have made it clear that the petitioner or any other person like Respondent No. 8 who are the purchasers ought to have been heard and ought to have been provided an opportunity. The order is passed and as could be seen from the order passed by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) dated 30.4.2010, the parties are only the banks and the recovery officer of Sidhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank and there is reference to Special Civil Application No. 3066 of 2010 and there is also a detailed discussion with regard to Sidhpur Commercial Co-operative Bank having executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and there is also a claim by Sidhpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank for exercise of powers under the Securitization Act which has reference to other litigations including Special Civil Application No. 3006 of 2010 and also Special Darkhast No. 12/2009. 17. Therefore, in spite of all these records being referred to and brought to the notice, no one including the parties, i.e., the banks, or the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) had thought it desirable to hear the parties who are affected. It therefore reflects on the manner in which the co-operative banks and the officers of the banks have conducted themselves and the affairs when the banks have parallely dealt with the same property and in exercise of powers they have executed the sale deed and handed over the possession to the parties who are now before the court like the petitioner complaining about their grievance that though they are bona fide purchasers for value and having paid substantial amount, they are entangled in litigation. The cause for this petition itself has arisen not only from the petitioner, but the manner in which the affairs have been conducted by the banks and on top of that the way in which the revision application is decided by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals). The cause for this petition itself has arisen not only from the petitioner, but the manner in which the affairs have been conducted by the banks and on top of that the way in which the revision application is decided by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals). While considering and deciding the revision application he has not even thought it fit to make a note of such transactions which have been clearly mentioned in the order. 18. It is in these circumstances, to say the least, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Patan, below Exh. 58 in Special Darkhast No. 12/09 dated 11.5.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Patan, for fresh decision. It is further directed that the petitioner may be permitted to be joined as a party and the same may be decided afresh after hearing all concerned on merits in accordance with law. It also goes without saying that the petitioner will also have a right to be heard before any offshoot, including any proceedings before the authority like revision, to put forward his case. 19. After the above order is passed, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has stated that there is a separate petition being Special Civil Application No. 6987 of 2011 pending before a coordinate Bench of this Court where he is contesting about the petitioner being heard in the proceedings including the revision application before the authority and it has a reference to the earlier proceeding in this matter including the order passed in the revision by the Dy. Secretary (Appeals) dated 30.4.2010. It is therefore thought desirable to make the position clear to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or any kind of offshoot or any application for clarification. This may however be not considered as having decided either way any issue pending before the court in Special Civil Application No. 6987 of 2011 which can be considered on merits having regard to the aforesaid aspects. 20. It goes without saying that till the court below decides the application afresh in Special Darkhast No. 12/2009, the parties, including the petitioner herein, shall maintain status-quo with regard to the property in question. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P