Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the order dated March 17, 2008 passed by the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in R.P. No.45 of 1998 thereby directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh with the opposite party bank within a period of April 30, 2008. The appellant is the petitioner herein. In a recovery proceeding, the bank creditor got a decree of Rs.32,56,208.40 against the debtors / defendant nos. 1 & 2. The mortgaged property was sold in auction at a price of Rs.17,11,000/-in the recovery proceeding. Sale was confirmed thereafter. Long time thereafter, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid sale on the ground that the price, at which the property was sold, was too low and no reserve price was fixed at the time of auction sale. The Debts Recovery Tribunal took initiative when an application was made to that effect and the revaluation was done. Consequently, the auction purchaser / appellant was directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal to deposit a further sum of Rs.16,35,415.15 with the creditor bank against which an appeal was preferred by the appellant. As a condition for stay, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh. Being aggrieved by such order, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that while admitting the appeal, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakh with the opposite party respective bank within a period of April 30, 2008. In the event of such deposit, the appeal shall be entertained for the purpose of disposal of the same on merits. In case of violation to comply with the said order, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Other conditions have been imposed to the effect that if deposits are made with the bank by the appellant, the creditor Bank will keep the same in a short time fixed deposit, etc. In case of violation to comply with the said order, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Other conditions have been imposed to the effect that if deposits are made with the bank by the appellant, the creditor Bank will keep the same in a short time fixed deposit, etc. When an Appellate Court is entertaining an appeal in respect of a direction that the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.16,35,415.15 with the creditor bank as per order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal is within its competence to fix terms and conditions as to condition for stay for the order impugned and such a procedure has been adopted in the instant case. This was made in view of the allegations raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the property was sold at too low price and that no reserve price was determined. It may be noted herein that before passing the impugned order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal obtained a report from the concerned Sub-Registrar relating to the valuation of the property in question and then the Debts Recovery Tribunal directed to appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.16,35,415.15. The appellate authority is within its competence to pass such orders as a condition for stay so as to ensure payment to some extent to the respondent if the appellant / petitioner herein fails to succeed in the appeal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has also made the condition that in case of deposit of such amount, the creditor bank will keep the same in a short time fixed deposit which shall be renewed from time to time pending disposal of the appeal, meaning thereby the amount to be deposited, is not to be appropriated now against the award passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, the interest of the appellant / petitioner herein has been secured by the impugned order, if it succeeds. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It also cannot be stated that the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has committed errors of law in passing the impugned order. Therefore, in exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, without merits and is dismissed accordingly. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Therefore, in exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The application is, therefore, without merits and is dismissed accordingly. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.