JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the possession notice dated 16.05.2016 and sale notice dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure No.1) issued by the respondent no.2. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding and directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from petitioner’s mortgaged house and also to release petitioner’s house by accepting the reserve price money of petitioner’s mortgaged house ‘15,11,000/- from the petitioner by giving one month’s time. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner’s son took a loan from the respondent bank in the year 2009 in which the petitioner was one of the mortgagors; he mortgaged his house situated Khasra No.1560 measuring 186.12 sq. metre. Due to huge loss in business, petitioner’s son could not repay the loan, on which, the respondent bank issued proceedings against him under the SARFAESI Act. The case of the petitioner is that the default in bank loan was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and he never received any notice from the bank. On 04.10.2016, when the petitioner came to Dehradun for some personal work, then he could know about the impugned possession notice dated 16.5.2016 and sale notice dated 11.08.2016 issued by the respondent bank. Thereafter, he approached the bank and made a request to accept the reserve price money for his mortgaged house and to make free his mortgaged house, but the respondent bank did not accept his request. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay reserve price of the mortgaged house, which is Rs. 15,11,000/-, to the respondent bank and the mortgaged property be given to him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents bank strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the impugned possession notice and sale notice were issued to the petitioner on 16.05.2016 and 11.8.2016, respectively, and in pursuance thereof, an auction was held on 20.09.2016, in which the mortgaged house of the petitioner has been sold to one Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, who was the highest bidder; sale certificate in this regard, has also been issued on 29.9.2016. Learned counsel further submits that in view of subsequent development, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same should be dismissed as infructuous. Shekhar Agarwal, who was the highest bidder; sale certificate in this regard, has also been issued on 29.9.2016. Learned counsel further submits that in view of subsequent development, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same should be dismissed as infructuous. 5. Recording the said submission made by learned counsel for the respondents bank, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, it will be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum against the orders passed by the Authorities, subsequently.