JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal & Shashi Kant, JJ. Heard Sri Ram Prakash holding brief of Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and perused the two counter affidavits filed by respondent No.4 dated 17.07.2005 and 11.08.2008. The petitioner has come up in this petition against the notice of sale of his property so as to recover a sum of Rs.32,546/- from him. 2. It appears that the petitioner took financial assistance of Rs.55,000/- from the respondent No.4. He defaulted in the payment of the said amount and accordingly a recovery of Rs.44,395/- was issued against him on 18.07.2000. 3. The petitioner alleges that in pursuance of the aforesaid recovery he had deposited the entire amount and a no dues certificate was issued to him on 05.03.2001 by the respondent No.4. Therefore, there is no occasion for issuing any further recovery or to issue notice for the sale of his property. 4. Learned Standing Counsel points out that the no dues certificate relied upon by the petitioner is not acceptable to the respondent No.4 and that in the counter affidavit filed subsequently on behalf of respondent No.4 on 11.08.2008 it has been stated that the certificate has not been issued by the competent authority and that it is fake document. 5. Respondent No.4 has filed two counter affidavits. One is dated 11.07.2005 and the other one is dated 11.08.2008. In the first counter affidavit there is no averment that the no dues certificate as filed by the petitioner is a fake or fictitious document or that it has not been issued by the competent authority. The only averment made therein in defence is that the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery dated 18.07.2000 for a sum of Rs.44,395/- had not deposited the entire amount but only a sum of Rs.25,250/- and therefore, the recovery survives in respect of the balance amount. The respondent No.4 has not issued any no objection certificate to the petitioner. 6. It is only in the second affidavit that the story that no objection certificate is a fake document and has not been issued by the competent authority has been taken up. 7. In Ishwar Singh and others Vs. The respondent No.4 has not issued any no objection certificate to the petitioner. 6. It is only in the second affidavit that the story that no objection certificate is a fake document and has not been issued by the competent authority has been taken up. 7. In Ishwar Singh and others Vs. Surinder Bajaj and others 2014 (7) ADJ 544 it has been held that filing of successive affidavits by the same person and party is not permissible and that a same person/party cannot file successive counter affidavits in rebuttal to the averments made in the petition. 8. A counter affidavit to the petition filed by a party is sufficient pleading as far as the said party is concerned unless the court permits filing of any better or supplementary affidavit or where the amendment of the petition occasions filing of additional affidavit. This is not the situation in the present case and the second counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 is not with the leave of the court. In fact it has been filed by the subsequent counsel in ignorance that the previous counsel had already filed a counter affidavit. 9. In these circumstances, once a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 on 11.07.2005, the second counter affidavit filed on its behalf is not admissible. 10. Accordingly, we ignore the said second counter affidavit dated 11.08.2008 and proceed to decide the petition on the basis of the defence set up by the respondent No.4 in the initial counter affidavit. 11. In the initial counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 first of all it has not been alleged that the no dues certificate filed by the petitioner along with the petition is a fake document and that it has not been issued by the competent authority. Secondly, no statement of account has been brought on record so as to establish that when the aforesaid recovery certificate is said to have been issued, any amount had remained due against the petitioner as alleged on its behalf in the counter affidavit. 12. Secondly, no statement of account has been brought on record so as to establish that when the aforesaid recovery certificate is said to have been issued, any amount had remained due against the petitioner as alleged on its behalf in the counter affidavit. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier recovery dated 18.07.2000 for a sum of Rs.44,395/- is said to have been deposited the entire amount and no dues certificate has been issued to him, the respondents are not justified in law in issuing any notice for recovering any further amount or to put the property of the petitioner for sale. 13. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and the notice dated 16.02.2005 as published in the newspaper Amar Ujala published from Kanpur is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed not to recover any further amount from the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid loan transaction. 14. The petition is allowed accordingly.