JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. Following are the prayers made in paragraph No. 8 of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution: "(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issued writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside all the actions taken by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in pursuance to the property of the petitioner No. 1 Company situated in village Uttarsanda bearing Block No. 1583 in favour of the respondent No. 3 and his associates and direct to restore the possession of the property; (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent No. 4 to hold the inquiry and submit the report regarding the action taken by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in pursuance to the property belonging to the petitioner No. 1 - Company situated in village Utttarsanda bearing Block No. 1583; (C) During the pendency admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding further in transferring or alienating the property of the petitioner No. 1 - Company situated in Village Uttarsanda bearing Block No. 1583 in favour of Respondent No. 3 or any other person; (D) ............... (E) ..............." 2. As per the case of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 - company started a resort in the name and style of "Triumph Resort" with a restaurant in the name and style of "Angithi" and applied for financial assistance to respondent No. 1 - Vaso Cooperative Bank Limited (now known as "Cooperative Bank of Rajkot Limited) for which it mortgaged its properties with the Bank for Rs. 23,90,000/-. The respondent No. 1 - Bank sanctioned the loan of Rs. 41,90,000/-, but disbursed loan of Rs. 29,21,000/-. The respondent No. 1 then filed Lavad Suit No. 416 of 2000 before the Board of Nominee at Anand for recovery of the dues from the petitioners and the Board of Nominee in purported exercise power under Section 96 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ("the Act") passed the award on 26.03.2001 for recovery of Rs. 33,80,160/- with interest at the rate of 21% from 08.03.2000 from the petitioner No. 1 and its sureties including petitioner No. 2. 33,80,160/- with interest at the rate of 21% from 08.03.2000 from the petitioner No. 1 and its sureties including petitioner No. 2. Against such award, Appeal No. 341 of 2001 before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal ("the Tribunal) came to be filed, which is pending. It is alleged in the petition that without issuing any notice to the petitioners, the office bearers of respondent No. 1 highhandedly took away the possession of the properties of petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 - Special Recovery Officer then disposed of the properties of petitioner No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 in arbitrary manner and by flouting all norms for auctioning the properties for recovery of the dues. It is stated in the petition that the properties, worth more than Rs. 1 Crore, is sold at a throw away price of Rs. 17,80,000/- to respondent No. 3 and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to pay the dues, though the petitioners had served the notice dated 16.12.2003 to the respondent No. 1 stating that the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the entire amount. 3. The affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to oppose the petition. 4. This petition was earlier dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2011 on the ground that the alternative remedy of the appeal under Section 203 of the Bombay (now Gujarat) Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code) was available to the petitioners and, therefore, the petition was not required to be entertained. However, such judgment was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 08.10.2004 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 614 of 2012 preferred by the petitioners and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge to decide the petition afresh allowing all the parties to raise all contentions under the law. 5. The Civil Application is preferred by the petitioners to stay the proceedings of Execution Petition No. 52 of 2010 pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Nadiad. However, since the main petition was taken up for final hearing, the application was not required to be entertained and to be disposed of, accordingly. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Mr. Apurva Jani for the petitioners submitted that the properties of the petitioners worth more than Rs. However, since the main petition was taken up for final hearing, the application was not required to be entertained and to be disposed of, accordingly. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Mr. Apurva Jani for the petitioners submitted that the properties of the petitioners worth more than Rs. 1,25,00,000/- at the relevant time, was sold at a throw away price to respondent No. 3 without following mandatory requirement of the law. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that it was the Bank which put the petitioners in precarious situation by not disbursing the full loan sanctioned and still, the petitioners were subjected to proceedings of the Lavad Suit for recovery of the loan disbursed to the petitioners. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that simply because, there was award made by the Board of Nominee against the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 would not get licence to act arbitrarily and de-horse the legal requirement for selling the properties of the petitioners to recover the dues under the award. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that no notice before deciding to hold auction was given to the petitioners, no upset price was fixed and though the petitioners issued notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating that they were ready and willing to pay the entire due amount, the petitioners were not given such opportunity and respondent No. 3 was allowed to take away the properties of the petitioners under private negotiation with the Bank. Mr. Sanjanwala has taken the Court to relevant provisions of the Act and the Code and submitted that there was clear violation of provisions of law for making sale of the properties of the petitioners. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that no valuation of the properties of the petitioners was called and the auction was held in absence of the valuation report. He submitted that the petitioners paid the stamp duty on Rs. 41,00,000/- being the value determined for their properties by the stamp valuation authorities under the Stamp Act. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that after first auction failed, the Earnest Money Deposits (EMD) were returned to the bidders and without following procedure for fresh auction, the offer of respondent No. 3 was accepted though he had not paid any EMD. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted simply on private valuation report which was on the face of it unreliable, the properties of the petitioners were given away at throw away price to respondent No. 3. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted simply on private valuation report which was on the face of it unreliable, the properties of the petitioners were given away at throw away price to respondent No. 3. Mr. Sanjanwala submitted that since, the properties of the petitioners are snatched away in totally high handed and illegal manner, the impugned actions taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for selling the properties of the petitioners to respondent No. 3 are required to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners are required to be restored with their properties. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for respondent No. 1 - Bank submitted that the petitioners, all throughout, had conducted themselves in dishonour manner and had no intention to repay the loan disbursed by the Bank to them. He submitted that the petition suffers from delay and latches inasmuch as the sale took place in favour of respondent No. 3 on 30.02.2002 and the petition came to be filed on 29.03.2004. He submitted that going by limitation provided under Articles 99, 127 and 281 of the Limitation Act, the petition could be said to be barred by limitation to set aside sale. He submitted that even otherwise, as per Sections 167 and 178 of the Code, since the petitioners have not taken any action they are estopped from challenging the sale made in favour of respondent No. 3. Mr. Soni submitted that the petitioners had in fact purchased the properties only for Rs. 6,00,000/- and no material is placed on record to show what was the final decision taken by the stamp valuation office on the valuation of the properties. Mr. Soni submitted that under due panchnama carried out in the presence of the employees of the petitioners, the possession of the properties was taken by the Bank and there was no illegality committed by the Bank in taking over possession of the properties of the petitioners. Mr. Soni submitted that in fact, after obtaining valuation report, the sale was finalized and there was no fraud committed by the Bank in auctioning of the properties of the petitioners. Mr. Soni submitted that the due procedure was followed under the provisions of the Act and the Code for sale of the properties of the petitioners to recover the dues of the Bank. Mr. Mr. Soni submitted that the due procedure was followed under the provisions of the Act and the Code for sale of the properties of the petitioners to recover the dues of the Bank. Mr. Soni submitted that though the petitioners have stated in the petition that they are ready and willing to pay the entire dues and though the interim order was made in the present proceedings by this Court for deposit of the amount with the Bank, the petitioners not only did not comply with the interim order made by this Court, but also have not honoured their statement on oath in the petition to pay the entire dues. Mr. Soni submitted that the conduct of the petitioners right from the beginning, show that they are just interested in delaying the proceedings and considering their conduct, they do not deserve exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution in their favour. 8. Learned advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioners having failed to make application to set aside sale, having failed to deposit any amount though they have shown readiness and willingness to deposit entire amount and, having not taken any action for long time, may not be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Parikh submitted that the petitioners did not raise any objection after the possession of their properties was taken in the year 2001. Mr. Parikh submitted that the proclamation of sale was displayed at four places and after the properties were sold to respondent No. 3, the petitioners have filed present petition and without honouring the interim order permitting the petitioners to deposit the amount, the grievance is made as regards violation of norms for auctioning their properties. Mr. Parikh submitted that considering the conduct of the petitioners and considering the fact that, the Bank could recover more than Rs. 17,50,000/- by selling the properties to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 having got possession of the properties in the year 2002 and having invested amount in such properties, the Court may not grant any relief to the petitioners in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. 17,50,000/- by selling the properties to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 having got possession of the properties in the year 2002 and having invested amount in such properties, the Court may not grant any relief to the petitioners in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The Court, having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that the actions taken towards sale of properties of petitioners are challenged on alleged violation of the provisions of the Code and the norms for auctioning the properties to recover the dues of the Bank. The petitioners have made reference to one Lavad Suit No. 416 of 2000 and to Appeal No. 314 of 2000 filed against the award made by the Board of Nominee in Lawad Suit. However, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply, which could not be disputed by the petitioners, two Lavad Suits were filed wherein two different awards have been made, one is for Rs. 33,80,160/- in Lavad Suit No. 416 of 2000 and second is in Lavad Suit No. 417 of 2000 for Rs. 7,26,938/- and the petitioners have not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal but the appeal referred in petition is stated to be preferred by the sureties. Be that as it may, to execute the awards, the Bank made proposal under Section 103 of the Act to the District Registrar to issue certificate to the Collector for recovery of the dues under the revenue law, pursuant to which the District Registrar issued two different certificates authorizing the recovery of the dues as revenue recovery. The copies of such certificates are placed on record. Pursuant to such certificates, the Special Recovery Officer - respondent No. 2 issued notices under Section 152 and 200 of the Code to the petitioners and sureties/guarantors. The copies of such notices are placed on record. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that such notices were never received by them. As could be seen from the notices, the notices were sent at the addresses of the petitioners shown in the Lavad Suits. The notice of the Lavad Suit was served to the petitioners as stated in the award made by the Board of Nominees. The petitioners have not challenged the award, nor intimated about change in their address. As could be seen from the notices, the notices were sent at the addresses of the petitioners shown in the Lavad Suits. The notice of the Lavad Suit was served to the petitioners as stated in the award made by the Board of Nominees. The petitioners have not challenged the award, nor intimated about change in their address. The bank has produced the copy of postal endorsement "Left" to show that the notice was sent to the petitioners. It is required to note that such notices issued to sureties in the same town were duly served. Thus, the petitioners could be said to have received constructive notice. Section 165 of the Code provides for procedure in effecting sale either of movable or immovable property by issuing a proclamation and Section 166 of the Code provides for notification of the sales. The copy of the proclamation issued under Section 165 of the Code for sale of movable and immovable properties i.e. land bearing block No. 1583 paikee 6576 square meters with construction thereof of the petitioners is placed on record. Notice of such proclamation was affixed at the office of the Collector, office of the Mamlatdar, office of the Panchayat where the immovable properties are situated and at the Bank premises. As per the communications from the office of the Collector, the Mamlatdar, Uttarsanda Gram Panchayat and the Bank addressed to the respondent No. 2, the notices of publication of the proclamation for sale of the properties of the petitioners were published the respective places of their offices. It was then a public advertisement was given in the daily Gujarati newspapers "Sandesh" copy whereof is also placed on record of the petition. It appears that four bidders took part in the auction and as per the condition of deposit of earnest money, all four bidders deposited Rs. 50,000/- as EMD. Thereafter, the auction had taken place. As could be seen from the proceedings of the auction, highest offer of Rs. 15,00,000/- was received. However, respondent No. 2 postponed the auction on the ground that the bid was below upset price and ordered to place the public notice on the notice board of the Bank to invite further offers on 29.10.2001. The EMD of the bidders were returned to them. 15,00,000/- was received. However, respondent No. 2 postponed the auction on the ground that the bid was below upset price and ordered to place the public notice on the notice board of the Bank to invite further offers on 29.10.2001. The EMD of the bidders were returned to them. Thus, the day on which the sale was postponed, respondent No. 2 placed public notice on the board of the Bank inviting interested persons to send their offers in sealed cover by contacting the Manager of the Bank. It appears that pursuant to such notice, six persons including respondent No. 3 sent their offers. The respondent No. 3 in his offer dated 20.03.2002, copy whereof is produced on record at page 212, stated that he wanted to purchase the properties for Rs. 20,00,000/- if the properties were given with clear title but if he was to discharge or responsibility as regards light bill, telephone bill, income tax, revenue due etc. then he would desire to purchase the properties for Rs. 17,50,000/-. It appears that pursuant to such offer, negotiation took place with respondent No. 2 in presence of the Chairman of the Bank and pursuant to the negotiation, respondent No. 2 accepted the offer of respondent No. 3 for Rs. 17,80,000/- and informed the Manager of the Bank vide letter dated 27.03.2002 that the offer of respondent No. 3 was accepted and that after full amount was deposited by respondent No. 3, he should be given possession of the properties. It appears that the Bank also informed respondent No. 3 about acceptance of his offer and asked him to deposit Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance and to deposit remaining amount upto 15.04.2002. It was pursuant to such decision taken to accept the offer of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 30.04.2002, copy whereof is placed on record at Annexure R/2 with affidavit-in-reply dated 02.11.2004 filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, for sale of movable and immovable properties of the petitioners in favour of respondent No. 3. In such order, it is stated that respondent No. 3 has paid Rs. 2,51,000/- on 27.03.2002, Rs. 80,000/- on 30.03.2002, Rs. 4,49,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 30.04.2002. It appears that there was some delay in depositing the full amount. 11. In such order, it is stated that respondent No. 3 has paid Rs. 2,51,000/- on 27.03.2002, Rs. 80,000/- on 30.03.2002, Rs. 4,49,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 30.04.2002. It appears that there was some delay in depositing the full amount. 11. The petitioners have made grievance that the Bank took the possession of the properties in highhanded manner and behind the back of the petitioners. The Bank in the affidavit-in-reply stated that the possession was taken in presence of the employees of the petitioners by drawing panchnama. It appears that the petitioners though were aware that the possession of their properties were taken by the Bank and it was with the Bank, they never made any grievance. After notice for proclamation was placed at different places, as stated above, a public advertisement in the daily newspapers "Sandesh" was also given. Thus, it appears that proper publication for auction was made. However, it is contended that there was no proper valuation of the properties done and no upset price was fixed. It appears that there is no provision in the Code for either fixation of upset price or for prior valuation of the properties to be sold, but Rule 128 of The Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (the Rules) gives discretion to the Collector to fix upset price. The Court does not find from the documents placed on record that respondent No. 2 had fixed upset price before putting the properties of the petitioners to auction. In absence of provision for upset price in the Code and the discretion available to the Collector in the Rules, non-fixation of upset price will not render the auction invalid. However, to fetch higher price, respondent No. 2 postponed the sale and decided to invite further offers on the ground that the highest bid received was below upset price. As regards the fixation of the valuation of the properties, it appears that before negotiation with respondent No. 3 was finalized, the valuation of the land of the petitioners with the valuation of built up area and the furniture was got done, by one Nihir Dave stated to be the approved valuer. As per his report dated 27.02.2002, copy whereof is placed on record at page No. 116, the total valuation of the above properties was Rs. 17,50,000/-. As per his report dated 27.02.2002, copy whereof is placed on record at page No. 116, the total valuation of the above properties was Rs. 17,50,000/-. The petitioners have alleged that such valuation was not proper valuation as when they purchased the land, the valuation put by the stamp valuation department was of Rs. 45,00,000/-. The Court finds that whether the properties were sold at a throw away price or that the valuation report was not acceptable or whether the properties were undervalued are the questions of fact to be decided on the evidence and this Court may not decide such dispute while exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Mr. Sanjanwala however submitted that after postpone of the sale, fresh original proceedings for sale was required to be taken which is not done in the present case. As provided under Section 177 of the Code, if re-sale of the property takes place forthwith, a fresh notice in the manner prescribed for original sales is not required to be issued. As stated above, the date on which the sale was postponed for re-sale of the properties, immediate public notice on that very day was placed on the board of the Bank inviting further offers in sealed cover. It was in furtherance of such notice, respondent No. 3 gave his offer. The Court finds that since such proceedings for re-sale took place, immediately, there is no question of taking original fresh proceedings. As regards the contention that there was violation of the condition of the auction as regards immediate deposit of 25% of the bid amount and deposit of full amount of purchase money within the time prescribed, Mr. Sanjanwala referred Sections 173, 174 and 175 of the Code. It appears to the Court that there is some discretion given to the recovery officer in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 129 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972, to condone some delay in the payment of the full amount of purchase money if the delay is negligent. However, the question is whether in the facts of the case, the petitioners could be permitted to make any grievance in this regard. 13. However, the question is whether in the facts of the case, the petitioners could be permitted to make any grievance in this regard. 13. The Court finds that the petitioners have stated in paragraph No. 3.6 of the petition that the petitioner No. 1 served a notice to respondent No. 1 - Bank on December 16, 2003 and informed respondent No. 1 - Bank that the petitioners were ready and willing to pay the entire amount. It is required to note that the petitioners had, actually, not made any attempt to deposit any amount with the Bank to save their properties from being sold. Section 169 of the Code provides that if the defaulter, or any person on his behalf, pay the arrear in respect of which the property is to be sold and all other legal charges legally due by him at any time before the day fixed for sale to the person appointed under Section 146 to receive payment for the land revenue due, or to the officer appointed to conduct the sale or if he furnishes security under Section 164, the sale shall be stayed. The petitioners have not resorted to such statutory remedy. The petitioners have also not approached the Collector under Section 178 of the Code. Section 178 of the Code which provides for making application to set aside sale reads as under: "178. Application to set aside sale. - At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale of immovable property application may be made to the Collector to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity, or mistake, or fraud, in publishing or conducting it; But, except as is otherwise provided in the next following section, no sale shall be set aside on the ground of any such irregularity or mistake, unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction to the Collector that he has sustained substantial injury by reason thereof. 14. The petitioners though could address notice through their lawyer as averred in paragraph No. 3.6 of the petition have not thought it fit to approach the Collector for setting aside the sale on the grounds available under Section 178 of the Code by proving that they have sustained substantial injury on account of irregularity or mistake committed in conducting the sale of their properties. The selling of the properties of the defaulter at throw away price could be said to be substantial injury sustained by the defaulter but such is a matter of proof and the defaulter or the applicant on making application under Section 178 is to prove such substantial injury to the satisfaction of the Collector. The petitioners have not availed such remedy under Section 178 of the Code. The petitioners want to this Court to assess and adjudicate their claim presented in the petition that their properties were worth Rs. 45,00,000/- and the valuation done was not correct and by less valuation of their properties they have sustained substantial injury which require setting aside sale conducted by the recovery officer. The Court is not to undertake such exercise in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. It is required to note that after the awards were made by the Board of Nominees, the petitioners have not made any payment to the Bank. The sale was finalized in the month of April 2002 and for nearly two years, the petitioners did not file petition. The petition came to be filed in the month of March 2004. 16. During pendency of the petition, the petitioners had moved Civil Application No. 251 of 2005 seeking to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from proceedings further in pursuance to the notice for recovery of the dues from them. The Court heard Civil Application and the main petition and passed the following order on 11.02.2005. "Triumph Recreation Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Bhavnaben Rajeshbhai Pandya and others, petitioners, have filed this petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the action taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 namely Vaso Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Deputy Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, pursuance to the property of the petitioner No. 1 Company situated in village Uttarsanda bearing Block No. 1583 in favour of the respondent No. 3 and his associates and direct to restore the possession of the property. When the matter was placed for hearing before this Court on 6th April, 2004, this Court has issued notice and granted interim relief. When the matter was placed for hearing before this Court on 6th April, 2004, this Court has issued notice and granted interim relief. Meanwhile civil application No. 251 of 2005 has been filed by the company praying for restraining the respondents from taking further action pursuant to the notice issued by Recovery Officer dated 18th December, 2004. In the said civil application, this Court has issued notice on 28th January, 2005. Heard Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Siraj Gori, learned AGP for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition in which it has been stated that the applicant company will pay the entire dues of the Bank within six months. The total amount due and payable by the Company to the Bank is Rs. 60,27,800/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as on 27th January, 2005. The petitioner further agreed and undertake before this Court that they will pay Rs. 10.00 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lacs only) per month and the said amount will be paid within six months. The petitioner company through his Managing Director shall file an undertaking (along with resolution of Board of Directors of Company) to this effect that they will pay the amount accordingly and the said undertaking is to be filed by 21st February, 2005. The first instalment starts from 18th March, 2005, and all monthly instalments to be paid on 18th and 20th of every month till the final payment to be made in this behalf. On this condition, the interim relief granted in the main matter is continued till further orders. This civil application is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Special Civil Application No. 4206 of 2004 Rule. Mr. Soni, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Mr. Siraj Gori, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3." 17. However, the petitioners did not comply with such order and, therefore, respondent No. 1 - Bank moved Civil Application No. 3796 of 2005 for vacating the interim relief. The Court passed the following order on 28.06.2005. "Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3." 17. However, the petitioners did not comply with such order and, therefore, respondent No. 1 - Bank moved Civil Application No. 3796 of 2005 for vacating the interim relief. The Court passed the following order on 28.06.2005. "Mr. B.S. Patel, learned advocate, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are able to make the payment. I have already passed order on 11.2.2005 in Civil Application No. 251 of 2005 and as per that order and the order dated 13.5.2005 also the petitioners have not been able to file undertaking. In view of the same, Civil Application No. 3796 of 2005 is allowed. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. The main matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 4206 of 2004 to be kept on 5.7.2005. Civil Application No. 3796 of 2005 stands disposed of accordingly." 18. Thus, the petitioners though invited interim order on condition of depositing entire amount, however, did not either file the undertaking or deposit the amount and right from June 2005 onwards there is no interim relief operating in the petition. The petitioners, thus, had not only not paid any amount after the awards were made by the Board of Nominee but even after serving notice by their lawyer stating that they were ready and willing to deposit the amount they did not deposit any amount and pursuant to the interim order passed in the present petition also, they did not deposit the amount. With such conduct on the part of the petitioners and having regard to the fact that the petitioners have not approached the Collector under Section 178 of the Code seeking to set aside the sale and when it appears that respondent No. 2 made efforts to fetch higher price after postponing the sale and since the price offered by respondent No. 3 was highest amongst other bidders of Rs. 17,80,000/- which was paid by respondent No. 3 and could be appropriated towards recovery of the dues of the bank, the Court finds that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. In the case of Guttikonda Venkataramaiah v. Godavarthy Venkateswarlu and another, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 46 , relied on by learned advocate Mr. 19. In the case of Guttikonda Venkataramaiah v. Godavarthy Venkateswarlu and another, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 46 , relied on by learned advocate Mr. Parikh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the context of proceedings taken under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code for auctioning the property in execution of recovery, has held and observed in paras 14 to 17 as under: "14. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the judgment delivered by the High Court is not just and proper for the reason that respondent No. 1- debtor had never shown his fairness in the entire proceedings. Though an ex-parte decree was passed against him, he never made sincere efforts to get the decree set aside. Even at the time when the sale proclamation had been issued, he did not raise any objection to the effect that even by sale of lesser area of his land, the decree-holder would get his dues. Only after the auction sale had been concluded, he had initiated different proceedings before different Courts, perhaps only with an intention to see that the property in question is not transferred to the auction purchaser. 15. In our opinion, respondent No. 1 ought to have raised his objection at the stage when the property in question was to be sold by an auction. He did not do so. Subsequently, after the property was sold at the auction, he approached the High Court, though a proper remedy for him was to file an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC. When the High Court had directed him to file appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum, he did so, but there also he was so careless that the proceedings had been concluded against him on account of defaults committed by him. 16. The aforestated circumstances very well show that the intention of the principal debtor is to avoid making payment to the decree holder. If the judgment delivered by the High Court is upheld, the entire proceedings with regard to execution will commence de novo and one does not know as to when the proceedings would be concluded and the decree holder would get the decretal amount. By this time, the decretal amount, which was Rs. If the judgment delivered by the High Court is upheld, the entire proceedings with regard to execution will commence de novo and one does not know as to when the proceedings would be concluded and the decree holder would get the decretal amount. By this time, the decretal amount, which was Rs. 3,55,732/- somewhere in 2006, must have increased substantially and it would not be just and proper to keep the decree holder waiting still more. 17. For the aforestated reasons, in the interest of justice, we feel that the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. If the auction purchaser is not in possession of the property in question or if there is obstruction by respondent No. 1, such obstruction shall be removed and the appellant shall be put in possession of the property in question." 20. In light of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition is required to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.