JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (herein after referred as “DRAT”). 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava-the respondent No. 4 is engaged in the business of Javik Fertilizer under the name and style of M/s Om Shanti Enterprises and had obtained credit facility of Rs. 4.50 lacs from the Punjab National Bank, Kydganj Branch, Allahabad i.e. respondent No. 2 for promoting his business. Shri Ladli Prasad Srivastava-the respondent No. 3 had furnished the guarantee for repayment of bank dues and had mortgaged his residential house with the bank. It has been alleged that the respondent No. 3 did not receive any notice or information from the bank regarding the classification of account as NPA and also averred that he did not have any knowledge about the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred as “SARFEASI Act”). The respondent No. 3 claimed that he did not have any knowledge of proceeding initiated by the bank prior to 13.11.2010, when auction purchaser (petitioner) had visited the house for taking possession of the same. After receiving information from the bank, the respondent No. 3 approached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as “DRT”) and filed an application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act. The case was registered as S.A. No. 184 of 2010. The respondent No. 3 had set out his case that notice under Section 13(2) or 13(4) of the Act had never been served upon him and possession notice had also not been published in two newspapers. He also did not have any knowledge. The sale notice allegedly published on 13.1.2010. The residential house of respondent No. 3 was put for auction and the petitioner being as successful bidder had purchased the property for consideration of Rs. 6.55 lacs on 13.2.2010. The sale was confirmed on 24.4.2010. He also did not have any knowledge. The sale notice allegedly published on 13.1.2010. The residential house of respondent No. 3 was put for auction and the petitioner being as successful bidder had purchased the property for consideration of Rs. 6.55 lacs on 13.2.2010. The sale was confirmed on 24.4.2010. The respondent No. 3 had contested the case before the DRT and moved an application under Section 17(1) alongwith Section 13(8) of SARFEASI Act stating that he continued in possession of the residential house and was ready to deposit the entire dues of the bank and requested to provide the benefit of redemption as provided under Section 13(8) of the SARFEASI Act. In this background, the respondent No. 3 submitted to the DRT through an application and prayed that the sale proceedings initiated by the bank in absence of service of notice under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the SARFEASI Act be declared illegal and be quashed and may also be given liberty to redeem the property after full payment of dues. The detailed objection had been filed by the bank with categorical averment that the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act had been issued on 22.5.2009 which was sent through registered post at the correct address of the applicant and the same had been delivered. It has also been stated that after receipt of the notice, the respondent No. 3 and his son (borrower) vide letter dated 28.7.2009 had volunteered before the bank to clear the dues. An objection had also been filed by the bank that the said proceeding under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act was time barred. The possession notice was published in two newspapers as per law on 15.9.2009. 4. It is also apparent from the record that the respondent No. 3 after issuance of possession notice filed Writ Petition No. 8143 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the same. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.2.2010. The operative portion of the order dated 17.2.2010 is reproduced herein below : “Prayer in this petition is for quashing the advertisement/notice dated 3.1.2010 by which proceeding under Section 13(4) of the Security Interest(Enforcement) Act, 2002, has been given. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his son was given loan and petitioner is the guaranteer and in the event of default process is there. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his son was given loan and petitioner is the guaranteer and in the event of default process is there. Submission is that petitioner was never intimated about the defaulted amount required to be paid otherwise petitioner could have paid the amount. It is then submitted that the property i.e. House NO. 7/165 Mini LIG, Jhusi as mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition is the only place of residence for the petitioner and his family members and if that is subjected to auction and creation of third party right then there will be irreparable injury to the petitioner. Submission is that petitioner is able to pay the amount if breathing time is given. On these facts learned counsel for the bank submits that it was never intention of the bank to cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and bank is interested only in respect to the amount and if there is any good faith/bona fide on the part of the petitioner then reasonable consideration this Court can always extend. Accordingly without going into the merits of the matter this petition is disposed of by giving following directions- 1) Petitioner is directed to deposit entire amount in terms of the notice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) which is required to be paid directly with the respondent bank within a period of three weeks from today. 2) For the aforesaid period no coercive measure will be taken by the respondent against the petitioner and his property. 3) In the event of default in payment of the amount as directed, the protection so given shall seize to operate and it will be open for the respondent to immediately proceed to recover the entire amount to which petitioner undertakes not to object. With the aforesaid directions. this petition stands disposed of." 5. As per the direction issued by the Court, the entire outstanding of the bank had to be paid by respondent No. 3 within three weeks time. When the respondent No. 3 failed to clear the dues of the bank, the bank in pursuance to the earlier sale notice dated 13.1.2010 had proceeded into the matter and sold the property for consideration of Rs. 6.55 lacs in favour of the petitioner and also issued sale certificate on 27.4.2010. When the respondent No. 3 failed to clear the dues of the bank, the bank in pursuance to the earlier sale notice dated 13.1.2010 had proceeded into the matter and sold the property for consideration of Rs. 6.55 lacs in favour of the petitioner and also issued sale certificate on 27.4.2010. The petitioner had also filed an objection in the said proceedings with categorical stand that the respondent No. 3 had deliberately avoided to liquidate the bank dues and as such the right, title and interest of the property in question had been transferred in favour of the auction purchaser (petitioner) and once the sale certificate had been issued in her favour and as such the sale was confirmed. Therefore, the application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act was not maintainable. It is also indicated as per record that the respondent No. 3 had submitted a demand draft of Rs. 6 lacs on 24.9.2011 in the course of final hearing before the DRT. 6. Learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, while considering the application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act of respondent No. 3, had taken categorical note of limitation as provided under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act which provides 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken. Once steps were taken by creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act and if any application before the DRT proposed to be made persons aggrieved has to take initiative within 45 days from the date of such action taken by the creditor. 7. In the present matter, possession was taken by the creditor on 15.9.2009. The DRT vide order dated 9.11.2011 had rejected the application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act, moved by the respondent No. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal before the DRAT, Allahabad under Section 18 of the SARFEASI Act, whereby the securitisation application preferred by respondent No. 3 had been dismissed. The DRAT vide order dated 13.1.2012 had allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that “since the right of redemption as exercised has also been pleaded, therefore, the auction sale is also set aside. Appeal is allowed. The DRAT vide order dated 13.1.2012 had allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that “since the right of redemption as exercised has also been pleaded, therefore, the auction sale is also set aside. Appeal is allowed. The bank shall return the amount of auction purchaser with simple interest @ 12% per annum within 30 days from the date the copy of this order is received.” 8. Aggrieved with the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the DRAT, Allahabad, this writ petition has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the DRAT is patently illegal inasmuch as no relief could be granted to the respondent No. 3 after sale had been completed and the necessary certificate had also been issued in favour of the petitioner (auction purchaser). It had also been pleaded that the order impugned cannot be sustained on the ground that while deciding the appeal, the DRAT had committed manifest error by ignoring the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8143 of 2010, in which the respondent No. 3 himself had given an undertaking before the Court that if he failed to clear the dues, no objection whatsoever would be raised by him on the sale of secured assets. The Appellate Tribunal had also himself interpreted under Section 13 (8) of the SARFEASI Act. It has also been argued that inspite of the sale certificate issued way back in the year 2010 but on one pretext or the other, the respondent No. 3 had delayed in handing over the possession of the disputed property inspite of the fact that the respondent No. 3 had not deposited the requisite amount within stipulated time and even as a token gesture, the same had been offered in the course of hearing after a gap of one year. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the order impugned is liable to be sustained on the ground that mere sale by itself though confirms a title upon the auction purchaser but the question with regard to right of redemption is to be understood in the context of Section 13(8) of the SARFEASI Act and the redemption will also be applicable before the actual transfer and not after the transfer of the property and in the present matter there was only de jure transfer and in the present matter, de jure, de facto transfer both are taken to be in account for the purpose of interpreting the right of redemption as provided by the legislature by virtue of Section 13 (8) of the SARFEASI Act in favour of the owner of the property and once no physical possession or de-facto possession had been handed over to the auction purchaser. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the DRAT is liable to be sustained. 11. Learned counsel for the bank has again reiterated the stand, which had been taken before the DRAT and submitted that once the petitioner’s application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act could not maintained and the same was filed beyond limitation, therefore, the DRAT order cannot be sustained and further the respondent No. 3 had not complied the direction issued by the Division Bench as such, neither the law nor equity is in favour of the petitioner and therefore, liable to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the DRT dated 9.11.2011 is liable to be set aside. 12. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 13. In the present matter, the respondent/bank had issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFEASI Act on 22.5.2009, which was sent through registered post at the correct address of respondent No. 3 and the same was served to him. The same can also be verified on the ground that after service of notice, the respondent No. 3 and his son (borrower) vide letter dated 28.7.2009 was ready to clear the bank dues, and when they did not fulfill their obligation, the bank had proceeded into the matter under the SARFEASI Act and possession notice was published in two newspapers as per law on 15.9.2009. This is admitted case that the respondent No. 3, after issuance of possession notice, filed writ petition No. 8143 of 2010 as indicated above and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.2.2010 had directed the respondent No. 3 to deposit the entire amount in terms of the notice, which was required to be paid directly with the respondent/bank within a period of three weeks from 17.2.2010. 14. It is also relevant to discuss here that the Division Bench, while disposing the aforesaid writ petition, has categorically observed that “In the event of default in payment of the amount as directed, the protection so given shall seize to operate and it will be open for the respondent to immediately proceed to recover the entire amount to which petitioner undertakes not to object.” 15. When the respondent No. 3 failed to clear the dues of the bank, the bank had proceeded into the matter and sold the property for consideration of Rs. 6.55 lacs in favour of the petitioner (auction purchaser) and issued sale certificate on 27.4.2010. An application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act was preferred by respondent No. 3 for setting aside the sale notice dated 13.1.2010 together with sale confirmation letter dated 24.4.2010 and also for order of redemption of security. The respondent No. 3 had approached to the Tribunal under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act on 16.11.2010, the period of limitation as provided under Section 17 (1) of the SARFEASI Act is only 45 days, from the date on which measures under Section 13 (4) of the SARFEASI Act had been taken. In the instant case, possession was taken over by the creditor on 15.9.2009, sale notice was made on 13.1.2010 and the sale certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.4.2010. This is also admitted case that the respondent No. 3 had approached to this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 17.2.2010 specifically directed the respondent No. 3 to deposit the entire outstanding amount of the bank within three weeks from 17.2.2010. Once direction was given by the Division Bench of this Court and the respondent No. 3 had not availed the said benefit and for the first time, in the DRAT he had volunteered a draft of Rs. Once direction was given by the Division Bench of this Court and the respondent No. 3 had not availed the said benefit and for the first time, in the DRAT he had volunteered a draft of Rs. 6 lacs on 24.9.2011 after more than 17 months from the direction issued by the Division Bench. Once the respondent No. 3 himself had approached to the High Court and given undertaking to clear the dues and if the same had not been deposited within stipulated time, then it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to move an application for extension of time or modification of the said order, but no endeavour was made in this regard and just to prolong the litigation, he had filed an application before the DRAT on 16.1.2010, which was admittedly barred by limitation. In the present matter, once the sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser (petitioner) after accepting his bid and confirming the sale as per provisions of the SARFEASI Act, the auction purchaser become the absolute owner of the property and as such the right in relation to the property vests with the auction purchaser. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 claims that the respondent No. 3 was entitled for redemption and placed his reliance to the Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and also submitted that if the petitioner was auction purchaser then as per law, the property was also required registration. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has no force in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and others, in Civil Appeal No. 3540 of 2002 decided on 28th May 2007 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the Court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the Court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well-settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non testamentary documents which require registration under sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 also placed reliance to the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in K Chidambara Manickam v. Sakeena, AIR 2008 Mad 108. The relevant paragraph Nos. 10.17, 10.18, 10.19 and 10.20 are as follows : “10.17. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Arumugham, S. and 2 others v. C.K.Venugopal Chetty and 5 others and the Supreme Court in B.Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and others, referred supra, squarely applies to the case on hand and we, therefore, have no incertitude to hold that the sale which took place on 19.12.2005 has become final when it is confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser and the auction purchaser is vested with rights in relation to the property purchased in auction on issuance of the sale certificate and he has become the absolute owner of the property. Further, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Arumugham, S. and 2 others v. C.K.Venugopal Chetty and 5 others and the Supreme Court in B.Arvind Kumar v. Government of India and others, referred supra, the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellant does not require any registration in view of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act as the same has been granted pursuant to the sale held in public auction by the authorised officer under SARFAESI Act. 10.18. 10.18. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the sale is not complete without registration of sale certificate, therefore, is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 10.19. If the argument of the borrowers that even after the issuance of the sale certificate, prior to registration, they are entitled to redeem the property is accepted, it would make the provisions of the SARFAESI Act redundant and the very object of the SARFAESI Act enabling the Banks and Financial Institutions to realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatch and to improve recovery of debts by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and thereby reduce non-performing assets by adopting measures for recovery and reconstruction would fail and would open a pandora’s box for the litigations upsetting the sale confirmed in favour of the bona fide auction purchasers, who invested huge money. 10.20. In view of our finding on this point, we hold that the sale of the secured asset in public auction as per Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, which ended in issuance of a sale certificate as per Rule 9(7) of the Rules is a complete and absolute sale for the purpose of SARFAESI Act and same need not be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act." 18. The question, whether under sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the borrower is permitted to redeem the immovable secured assets after the secured asset was sold before confirmation of sale by the secured creditor under the creditor interest after enforcement of rules, was the question involved in the matter. The very object of the SARFAESI Act, enabling the Banks and Financial Institutions to realize long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatch and to improve recovery of securities, sell them and thereby reduce non performing assets by adopting measures for recovery and reconstruction. The sale of the secured asset in public auction as per Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, which come to logical end in issuance of a sale certificate as per Rule 9 (7) of the Rules, is a complete and absolute sale for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act. In the present matter, the petitioner is a bona fide auction purchaser, who had invested huge amount in the year 2010. 19. In the present matter, the petitioner is a bona fide auction purchaser, who had invested huge amount in the year 2010. 19. In view of above, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 10.1.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad cannot be sustained and is accordingly, quashed. The respondent No. 3 is not entitled to make any payment as he slept over and forfeited his right to redemption. 20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. ——————