Order : I.A. No.8939 of 2013 : In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer for quashing public e-auction notice dated 11th December, 2013 and amendment in the writ petition. 2. It has been stated that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents are proceeding to auction the property in question. For the said purpose, the respondents had issued public e-auction notice dated 11th December, 2013 in the newspaper. According to the said notice, the auction is to be held on 16th January, 2014 between 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. 3. The respondents opposed the application. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that e-auction, which was to be held on 16th January, 2014, is not going to materialize, as no bidder has turned up within the prescribed period i.e. till 13th January, 2014. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the cause mentioned in the application in view thereof no longer exists and this application becomes infructuous. 4. In view of the said submission, Mr. M. S. Mittal, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, does not press this application. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.8939 of 2013 is disposed of as not pressed. I.A. No.9008 of 2013: 6. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer in the writ application as mentioned in Para2 of the application and amendment of the application, accordingly. 7. It has been submitted that for effective adjudication of the writ petition, the petitioner has to challenge the order passed under Section 13(3)(A) of SARFAESI Act, but inadvertently the said prayer could not be made in the writ petition, though the order dated 15th October, 2013 has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for addition of some facts in support of the said prayer, which have been described in Para-3 of the application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order sought to be challenged by way of proposed amendment is passed by the respondents and the same has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5. If the application for amendment is allowed, it would not be a surprise to the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order sought to be challenged by way of proposed amendment is passed by the respondents and the same has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5. If the application for amendment is allowed, it would not be a surprise to the respondents. The foundation of facts in support of the said prayer are on record and the same are closely related to the prayer already made in the writ petition and that the proposed amendment would not change the nature/character of the writ petition. He further submitted that a separate writ petition between the same parties, based on same facts, for the aforesaid purpose, would unnecessarily multiply the litigation, which is not in the interest of parties. 9. The respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer. It has been stated, inter alia, that the order sought to be challenged by way of amendment was well known to the petitioner and the same was passed before filing of the writ petition. The petitioner did not choose to incorporate the said prayer in the writ petition. The controversy, which would arise after amendment would further protract the writ petition, which is pending since long. There is no difficulty in challenging the said order in appeal at the appropriate stage under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act or in a separate writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that in view thereof prayer for amendment is liable to be rejected. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their contentions and submissions, I find that the amendment prayed for is based on the facts, which are already on record. The order sought to be challenged by way of amendment is also on record as Annexure5 to the writ petition. Thus, the amendment, if allowed, would not be a surprise to the respondents. 11. Further, the contention of the respondents that the order sought to be challenged attracts the provision of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act at appropriate stage and since the possession has already been taken by the Bank, that stage has already come has no substance in view of the fact that the order sought to be challenged has been passed under subsection (3)(A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also against the public policy to refuse the prayer of amendment and drive the parties to a fresh litigation for the prayer, which is based on foundational facts already on record and closely related to the prayer made in the writ petition. 12. Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. Amendment prayed for stands allowed. 13. I.A. No.9008 of 2013 is disposed of. 14. The respondents are at liberty to file supplementary counter affidavit to the amended writ petition. Application allowed.