JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner in M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2008 in W.P. (MD) No. 173 of 2007. In M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2018, the appellant prayed for condonation of delay of 620 days in filing the petition to set aside the order dated 08.03.2007 made in W.P. (MD) No. 173 of 2007 and filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2018, to set aside the order dated 08.03.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.173 of 2007. 2. A Single Bench of this Court vide common order dated 17.07.2009, has dismissed both the petitions. 3. The appellant/writ petition, challenging the legality of the order in dismissing M.P.(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2008, has filed this writ appeal. 4. A perusal of the materials would disclose among other things that the appellant/owner petitioner is the owner of the property in question which was mortgaged in favour of Bank of India, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. On account of the default committed, proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcements of Security Interest Act, 2002 [In short “SARFAESI Act”] and the mortgaged property was taken possession and the property was brought to sale through auction notice dated 12.12.2006. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner made a challenge to the auction proceedings by filing W.P.(MD)No.173 of 2017 and during the course of arguments, it was represented that the auction was held on 09.01.2007 and the purchaser did not make the payment in full and therefore, the auction was cancelled and the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, to the bank with liberty to approach the said bank for amicable settlement. 6. The auction purchaser filed W.P.(MD)No.221 of 2007, challenging the cancellation of the auction and during the pendency of the same, there was a mediation and agreement was arrived at between the bank and the auction purchaser and it was also reported before this Court and the appellant was also heard and then the appellant was directed to avail the alternate remedy, if he has got any grievance against the first respondent bank. 7. The appellant/writ petitioner made a challenge to the said order by filing W.A. (MD) Nos. 7. The appellant/writ petitioner made a challenge to the said order by filing W.A. (MD) Nos. 346 to 348 of 2007 and the said appeals were dismissed on 27.11.2008, wherein, it has been held that the appellant is not a party to decide the dispute between the successful auction purchaser and the bank and the said order in the writ appeal was also put to challenge in the form of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which also came to be dismissed. 8. The learned Judge has taken note of the entire facts and found that the reasons for condonation of delay have not been properly adduced and therefore, dismissed the miscellaneous petitions and making a challenge to the said common order, the appellant / writ petitioner came forward to file the present writ appeal. 9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who would submit that the appellants may be granted one more opportunity to put forth their case on merits. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that after compromise, the auction purchaser has purchased the property and thereafter he conveyed the said property in favour of a third party for valuable consideration and therefore, would contend that nothing remains for further adjudication in this matter. 11. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge in the impugned order, the appellant/writ petitioner has exhausted all his remedy and the auction proceedings has also culminated the sale of the property in question in favour of the auction purchaser/private respondent, who after getting into possession, had sold the property in favour of a third party also. Hence, in the light of the said fact, this Court is of the considered view that nothing remains for adjudication in this writ appeal. 13. This Court is also of the considered view and on merits of the case that the petitioner has not made out any tenable case for interference. 14. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.