Sunita Agarwal, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vipin Sinha appears for respondent bank and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh appears for respondent nos. 4 and 5. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the auction dated 21st April, 2006 of the mortgaged assets in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 21st February, 2005 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in Transfer Application No. 148 of 2000. The original application was filed by the bank for recovery from the petitioner, which application was allowed for an amount of Rs. 26,87,036.29/- together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum. In pursuance of the decree passed by the Tribunal the auction was held on 21st April, 2006 in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 for an amount of Rs. 6.30 lac. The petitioners had come up in this writ petition, challenging the auction, one of the ground of challenge was that the bank had sought report from valuer, who had submitted a valuation of the house as 15.8 lac. It was contended that the sale of the industrial plot was on a throw away price. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 9.5.2006, which is to the following effect: "Heard. Issue notice. Shri Vipin Sinha, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3, therefore, notice need not be sent to respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has served copy of this writ petition along with annexures in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Ms. Madhu Tandon, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that standing counsel does not represent any of the respondents. The office of the Chief Standing Counsel is directed to return all the copies of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice be sent to respondents nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 through Registered Post with acknowledgment due returnable at an early date. Requisite steps be taken within one week. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have three weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the third week of July, 2006 along with service report of notice. Requisite steps be taken within one week. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have three weeks' time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the third week of July, 2006 along with service report of notice. Until further orders of this Court we direct the respondents not to enforce impugned recovery/auction (Subject matter of the writ petition) and further the auction, in question, as already held shall not be confirmed." In pursuance of the interim order, the auction was not confirmed. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners bringing on record the copy of a letter dated 1st February, 2012 of the bank addressed to the petitioner for accepting the compromise proposal of the petitioners for an amount of Rs. 28 lacs. Petitioners case is that in pursuance of the offer given by the bank through letter dated 1st February, 2012, petitioners deposited entire amount of Rs. 28 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the bank has accepted the petitioners' offer of Rs. 28 lacs and the matter has been compromised by the bank, the decree stands satisfied and the auction of the industrial plot deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and petitioners ought to have filed objection before Recovery Officer. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 had deposited the entire amount before the Recovery Officer in the year 2006 itself and respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall suffer irreparable loss, if the auction is set aside. We have heard, learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court auction was not confirmed, auction of the plot was held only for an amount of Rs. 6.30 lac. From the materials brought on record in supplementary affidavit, it is clear that bank has entered into compromise for an amount of Rs. 28 lacs, which is much more than the amount, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The bank having entered into compromise with the petitioners and accepted the money, the decree stand satisfied and we are of the view that the auction, which has not been confirmed deserves to be set aside. 28 lacs, which is much more than the amount, which was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The bank having entered into compromise with the petitioners and accepted the money, the decree stand satisfied and we are of the view that the auction, which has not been confirmed deserves to be set aside. However, the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who have deposited the amount with the Recovery Officer since 2006 are entitled for refund of amount along with interest from the bank. Taking into consideration of the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that direction to the bank to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of deposit shall meets the end of justice. In view of the aforesaid we dispose of the writ petition with following directions:- i.) The bank having accepted the proposal of petitioners for an amount of Rs. 28 lacs, the decree against the petitioners stand satisfied. ii.) Auction, which was held on 21st April, 2006 which is not yet confirmed, is set aside. iii.) The respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall be entitled to return of the entire money deposited by them in pursuance of the auction held on 21st April, 2006 along with 9% interest. The interest shall be payable by the bank from the date of the deposit of the amount. iv.) The respondent nos. 4 and 5 shall be refunded the entire amount along with interest within a period of two months from the date of the copy of the order is produced. The writ petition is disposed of. _____________