Judgment : K. Suguna, J. 1. C.R.P.No. 3487 of 2012 is filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in I.A.No. 437 of 2012 in S.A.No. 227 of 2012, whereby, the petitioners’ request for the issue of a direction to deposit a sum of Rs.4,80,00,000/- by the purchasers either in the purchasers account or in a separate suspense account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch, pending conclusion of the investigation by the premier investigating agency and to further direct the bank to hand over the original title deeds to the purchaser, pending disposal of S.A.No. 227 of 2012, has been rejected. 2. As far as C.R.P.No. 3597 of 2012 is concerned, it is filed challenging the interim order dated 07.08.2012 passed in S.A.No. 227 of 2012, whereby, an order of interim injunction has been granted for 30 days restraining the Authorized Officer of the respondent bank from bringing the property described in the schedule, for sale, consequent upon the auction sale notice dated 09.07.2012, subject to the condition that the petitioners have to deposit a sum of Rs.4,80,00,000/- within 30 days, failing which that order will stand vacated. 3. S.A.No.227 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the sale notice dated 09.07.2012 (2nd sale notice), fixing the auction sale on 20.07.2012. 3. S.A.No.227 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners herein seeking to quash the sale notice dated 09.07.2012 (2nd sale notice), fixing the auction sale on 20.07.2012. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioners herein are guarantors of the loan availed by Ace Concrete Private Limited Company; the petitioners are the joint owners of the secured assets; however, Ace Concrete Private Limited Company had committed default in repayment of the loan; consequently, proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act; the first sale notice was issued on 21.01.2012; on the date of the said sale notice, a sum of Rs.23,39,54,702/- was due; challenging the same, the petitioners filed S.A.No. 69 of 2012 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in the said S.A., by order dated 27.02.2012, interim stay for a period of 30 days was granted on condition that the petitioners have to deposit 50% of the amount due within the said period of 30 days; subsequent to this, with the consent of the bank, the vacant plots and AC roof building at Varalakshmi Nagar Layout No.99, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, were sold and a sum of Rs.12,25,00,000/- was credited to the loan account; but, the balance payment was not paid and subsequent to this, on 02.07.2012, S.A.No. 69 of 2012 was dismissed; but, no appeal was filed as against the same; consequence of this, on 09.07.2012, the remaining properties were brought for sale for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,99,53,926; the petitioners challenged the said sale notice dated 09.07.2012 by filing S.A.No.227 of 2012; in the said S.A., the petitioners agreed to deposit Rs.1 crore within 02.08.2012 to show their bona fides; however, the Debts Recovery Tribunal granted one month’s time for the petitioners to procure a prospective buyer to clear the entire dues; subsequent to this, by order dated 07.08.2012, an order of interim injunction was granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, for 30 days, restraining the Authorised Officer of the bank from bringing the property for sale, consequent on the sale notice dated 09.07.2012, subject to the petitioners making a deposit of Rs.4,80,00,000/- with the respondent bank within the said 30 days; challenging the said order, C.R.P.No. 3597 of 2012 is filed. 4. As against the above said interim order dated 07.08.2012 passed in S.A.No. 227 of 2012, admittedly, an appeal will lie before the Debts recovery Appellate Tribunal. 4. As against the above said interim order dated 07.08.2012 passed in S.A.No. 227 of 2012, admittedly, an appeal will lie before the Debts recovery Appellate Tribunal. But, the petitioners had taken out an application in I.A.No. 437 of 2012 in S.A.No. 227 of 2012, wherein, the petitioners sought a direction from the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, directing the purchaser/third party to the deposit the sale price in the purchaser’s account or in a separate suspense account in the respondent bank. The said I.A.No. 437 of 2012 was dismissed by order dated 12.09.2012. Challenging the said order dated 12.09.2012 passed in I.A.No. 437 of 2012, C.R.P.No. 3487 of 2012 is filed. 5. As far as the order dated 07.08.2012, wherein, conditional interim injunction was granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, is concerned, no infirmity has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and we also find no infirmity in the said order. Admittedly, as against the said order, an appeal will lie before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. But, without exhausting the appeal remedy, straightaway, C.R.P.No. 3597 of 2012 has been filed before this Court. 6. As far as C.R.P.No. 3487 of 2012 is concerned, it is filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in I.A.No. 437 of 2012 in S.A.No. 227 of 2012. Here also, no infirmity in the impugned order has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is to set aside the sale. As far as items “A” and “C” of the property are concerned, they were sold on 20.07.2012, the sale was confirmed on 21.07.2012, sale certificate was issued on 13.09.2012, discharge receipt was issued by the bank for both the properties and registration was done on 14.09.2012. If the petitioners are having any grievances, they should have challenged the sale. But, before no forum, the said sale was challenged by the petitioners. On the other hand, S.A.No. 227 of 2012 which was filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.07.2012, was dismissed for default, even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on an earlier occasion. However, the said S.A. was restored on file. But, again, the same was dismissed for default on 30.06.2013. On the other hand, S.A.No. 227 of 2012 which was filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.07.2012, was dismissed for default, even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on an earlier occasion. However, the said S.A. was restored on file. But, again, the same was dismissed for default on 30.06.2013. Till today, the same has not been restored on file. The stand of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that for the restoration of the said S.A., these Civil revision Petitions have to be adjourned. But, when S.A.No. 227 of 2012 which was filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.07.2012 has been dismissed for default on 30.06.2013 for the second time, till today, i.e., even after the lapse of nearly a month, it has not been restored on file by the petitioners. Apart from this, even assuming that the S.A. has been restored on file, the oral relief sought by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court at this stage in these Civil Revision Petitions. S.A.No. 227 of 2012 itself was filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.07.2012 and the said sale notice is for three items of property and as per the Schedule to the said notice, the properties are as under: Item “A”: All that part and parcel of 1660 sq.ft. residential land and 4806 sq.ft. building jointly owned by Mr. C. Surendran, Mr. C. Ravindran, Mrs. R. Rajalakshmi, Mr. R. Rajarajan, Mr. R. Rajasekaran and Ms. R. Abirami, bearing Original Door No.1/31, Old No.52, New No.34, Present Door No.73, at Maddox Street, Vepery, Chennai 600 112 comprised in O.S.No. 788, R.S.No. 830, Block No.29, under Vepury Division and bounded on: North by: Chockalinga Mudaliar’s house/Private passage; South by: Amiruddin Sahib’s house/Land and Building old No. 35, New No. 75; East by: Veterinary College compound; West by: Maddox Street. Item “B” All that part and parcel of 62201.25 sq.ft. land with built in area of 38800 sq.ft. (part land of an extent of 142 cents) in the name of Mrs. Shanthi Sivasamy W/o Dr. Sivasamy at Old No.9 New Door No.51, Anna Salai, Nagalkeni, Pammal Village, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044, comprised in Rs.No. 187/1B and bounded on North by: 33 feet Road/Anna Salai, South by: R.S. & Sons property/Land and Building, East by: 33 feet Road/Anna Salai, West by: Mr. Shanthi Sivasamy W/o Dr. Sivasamy at Old No.9 New Door No.51, Anna Salai, Nagalkeni, Pammal Village, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044, comprised in Rs.No. 187/1B and bounded on North by: 33 feet Road/Anna Salai, South by: R.S. & Sons property/Land and Building, East by: 33 feet Road/Anna Salai, West by: Mr. A. Mubarak All property/Land & Building. Item “C” All that part and parcel of 10900 sq.ft. (25 cents) Residential land and 2700 sq. ft. building in the names of Mr. C. Surendran and Mr. S. Karthik at No.7 & 8, New No. 14A, Spring Garden, Second Street, Akkarai, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119 comprising at S.No.1/1C4 old Rs.1/1F present R.S.No.1/329, 1/330, 1/331, 1/332 at No.155, Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District individually owned by Mr. C. Surendran (12.5 cents) and S. Karthik (12.5 Cents) totally 25 cents (i.e.) 10900 sq.ft. and bounded on North by: Spring Garden II St., South by: Rs. No. 1/1C5, East by: Field No.14 A3 and 14/A4/Field No.14A, West by: Field No.15/Propety belonging to C. Surendran (Field Nos.14A/1 and 14A/2). As far as item “A” & “C” properties are concerned, they were sold on 20.07.2012, confirmation of sale was made on 21.07.2012, sale certificate was issued by the bank on 13.09.2012, discharge receipt was issued by the bank for both the properties and registration was done on 14.09.2012. As far as the vacant plots and AC roof building Varalakshmi Nagar Layout No.99, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk are concerned, with the consent of the bank, the petitioners themselves have sold the said property and deposited Rs.12.25 crores. 7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petitions, item “B” property has been sold for Rs.12 crores and after satisfaction of the entire dues to the bank, as on date, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the bank is having an excess amount of Rs.5 crores. But, according to the learned counsel for the respondent bank, the excess amount, as on date, with the bank is Rs.4.48 crores. 8. Besides, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as per the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioners are not liable to pay dues to the bank and only the new Directors of the borrower company are liable to settle the dues. 8. Besides, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as per the Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioners are not liable to pay dues to the bank and only the new Directors of the borrower company are liable to settle the dues. Further, according to him, so many infirmities have taken place in effecting the sale, consequently, on equity, the petitioners are at liberty to make a request to set aside the sale; after the sale of the schedule mentioned properties, the entire dues to the bank have been paid and an excess amount of Rs.5 crores is lying with the bank and the said sum of Rs.5 crores can be paid to the purchasers of “A” and “C” schedule property and also some compensation to them and the petitioners can get back two items of property which were sold in the auction held on 20.07.2012. 9. None of these requests of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners can be considered by this Court at this stage, since, what is under challenge in these two Civil Revision Petitions are only the conditional interim order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai in S.A.No.227 of 2012 and also the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in I.A.No.437 of 2012 in S.A.No.227 of 2012. To say in other words, the subject in issue is totally a different one in these two Civil Revision Petitions. Without even challenging the sale, we are not able to understand as to how the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks the relief of setting aside the sale orally before this Court repeatedly, in spite of this Court pointing out to him, so many times, that this request cannot be entertained. It is quite pertinent to point out, at this juncture, that even S.A.No.227 of 2012 which was filed challenging the sale notice dated 09.07.2012 was dismissed for default twice and as on date, the said S.A. is not restored. 10. Under such circumstances, after the confirmation of sale and after the issue of sale certificate, when that issue is not before this Court, certainly, we cannot entertain the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners to set aside the sale. 10. Under such circumstances, after the confirmation of sale and after the issue of sale certificate, when that issue is not before this Court, certainly, we cannot entertain the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners to set aside the sale. Further, as pointed out earlier, with regard to the orders which are under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions, no infirmity has been brought to the notice of this Court. Consequently, the Civil revision Petitions are dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.