Judgment : 1. O.A No.82/2001 filed by the first respondent bank under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was decreed as early as on 27-6-2002. More than eleven years have elapsed thereafter and the amount due to the first respondent bank has swelled upto Rs.1,75,00,000/-(Rupees one crore seventy five lakhs only) now. 2. The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the loan availed of by her son who alone objected to the valuation of the property before the Recovery Officer and the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The recovery officer considered the matter in detail by Ext.R1(k) order which has been affirmed in appeal by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Ext.R1(l) order. The present writ petition challenging the valuation by the petitioner on the eve of sale cannot be countenanced when no objection at all was filed by her at any point of time before. 3. The bank points out that substantial amounts would be realised by sale of the residential property occupied by the petitioner. It is also contended that the other two properties are not valuable and that its sale may not cover even one half of the amount due to the bank. I permit the bank to proceed with the E-auction of all the three items of property as proposed on any day after 28-2-2014. This is to enable the petitioner or her son to effect private alienation of their property with the concurrence of the bank after ensuring that the sale proceeds are applied directly to discharge the loan arrears. 4. The petitioner has not impleaded either the borrower or the other guarantor to whom other items property belong. It will be inequitable therefore to direct the bank to proceed against the property belonging to others before proceeding against the property of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.