ORDER : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Since the cause of action for instituting these two Writ Petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of them by way of this Common Order. 2. Heard Sri K. Sairama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 25772 of 2018, Sri Rubaina S. Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 26140 of 2018 and Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 26140 of 2018 and respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 25772 of 2018, apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. M/s. Sugun Pharma Limited, represented by its Managing Director and Authorized Signatory Sri Chadalavada Ramesh Babu, 2nd respondent in W.P. No. 25772 of 2018, filed Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the Tribunal') on 08.10.2015, praying the Tribunal to set aside the sale dated 08.10.2013 and to declare the claim of the respondent therein, as being barred by law of limitation. Along with the said application, M/s. Sugun Pharma Limited filed M.A. No. 35 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 691 days in filing the Securitization Application. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent therein, opposing the said application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, by way of the impugned order dated 06.06.2018, allowed the said application for condonation of delay, bearing M.A. No. 35 of 2015, and condoned the delay of 691 days in filing Securitization Application and directed to number the said Securitization Application, pursuant to which, it was numbered as S.A. No. 240 of 2018. 4. W.P. No. 25772 of 2018 came to be filed by M/s. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction & Securitization Company Limited, who is respondent in S.A. No. 240 of 2018 and respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 26140 of 2018, which was filed by the auction purchaser in the sale conducted on 08.10.2013. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, the order impugned is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, the order impugned is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is their further submission that though the application for condonation of delay was opposed by the respondent in the Securitization Application by way of filing a counter, the Tribunal did not assign any reasons, much less valid reasons, for condoning the exorbitant delay in filing the Securitization Application. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 26140 of 2018 that though the petitioner in the said Writ Petition emerged as highest bidder and despite the fact that a sale certificate was also issued after conclusion of the auction process, the Tribunal without giving any opportunity to the auction purchaser, passed the impugned order. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the sale certificate was also registered. It is eventually the submission of the learned counsel that the impugned order is vitiated in view of the violation of principles of natural justice. 6. It is absolutely not in controversy that the sale was held on 08.10.2013, wherein the petitioner in W.P. No. 26140 of 2018 emerged as the highest bidder and a sale certificate came to be issued in its favour, and registration of the sale certificate is also not in dispute. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the contentions raised, including the failure to afford opportunity to the auction purchaser, this Court deems it appropriate to remand M.A. No. 35 of 2015 for fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law and for passing appropriate orders after hearing all the stakeholders. Further, so as to enable the Tribunal to hear the auction purchaser also, this Court deems it appropriate to implead the auction purchaser as respondent No. 2 in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the auction purchaser stands impleaded as respondent No. 2 in M.A. No. 35 of 2015 in the Securitization Application. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, passed in M.A. No. 35 of 2015 in S.A. No. 240 of 2018. Accordingly, the auction purchaser stands impleaded as respondent No. 2 in M.A. No. 35 of 2015 in the Securitization Application. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, passed in M.A. No. 35 of 2015 in S.A. No. 240 of 2018. Accordingly, M.A. No. 35 of 2015 stands restored to the file of the Tribunal and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and for passing appropriate orders in M.A. No. 35 of 2015, strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, including the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser stands impleaded as respondent No. 2 in M.A. No. 35 of 2015 in the Securitization Application. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of M.A. No. 35 of 2015, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tribunal shall also make an endeavour for disposal of the main Securitization Application subject to outcome of M.A. No. 35 of 2015. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these cases, shall stand closed. Petition Allowed