JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner, M/s. Elogic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has presented this writ petition with following prayers: a. Quash the Sale notification dated 6-09-2019 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E and b. Direct the respondents to re fix the reserve price of the secure immovable asset as ordered by this Hon'ble Court on 02-08-2019 in WP 31565/2019. c. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Facts stated in the writ petition are, petitioner has availed term loan from the second respondent. A house property belonging to the Managing Director of petitioner-Company has been mortgaged as security. Petitioner's account was declared as NPA and recovery proceedings were initiated. Second respondent obtained an order to take possession of the property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act [Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act]. Petitioner challenged the same by filing S.A. No.499/2018, under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before the DRT [Debts Recovery Tribunal order dated August 2, 2019 has disposed of the writ petition by recording thus:]. The DRT granted interim protection subject to deposit of Rs.90 lakhs in two installments. Petitioner did not comply with the said interim order. The first respondent proceeded to issue e-auction sale notice to conduct the auction on August 2, 2019 by fixing reserve price at Rs.4.02 Crores. According to the petitioner, the value of the property is Rs.7.95 Crores. Petitioner presented writ petition No. 31565/2019 in this Court. This Court vide "7. In view of the submissions made and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner as well as respondent-Bank shall nominate one valuer each within a period of three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The aforesaid valuer shall inspect the property and shall submit a report within a period of one week thereafter and on the basis of the report which may be submitted by the valuer, respondent-Bank shall fix the reserve price of the property in question. Till then, the property of the petitioner shall not be put to auction. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of." Emphasis supplied 3. The second respondent again fixed the auction sale on September 6, 2019 at the same reserve price of Rs.4.02 Crores. Till then, the property of the petitioner shall not be put to auction. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of." Emphasis supplied 3. The second respondent again fixed the auction sale on September 6, 2019 at the same reserve price of Rs.4.02 Crores. Hence, petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 4. Shri. Kiran, learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that second respondent has brought the property for auction for the second time without complying with this Court's directions in W.P. No.3165/2019. 5. Shri. Amit Deshpande, learned Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 argued opposing the writ petition. 6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Records disclose that this Court on September 23, 2019 has permitted sale of the immovable property, but restrained finalization of sale. 8. On January 8, 2020, the interim order has been vacated based on the submission of the learned Advocate for the first respondent that the sale notice dated September 6, 2019 was superseded by subsequent sale notices dated December 7, 2019 and December 9, 2019. Respondent has filed Statement of objections on January 4, 2020. Paragraphs No.26 and 27 of the Statement of Objections read as follows: "26. It is respectfully submitted that, the Petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for the relief of Quashing the Sale notification, dated: 06.09.2019; issued by The Authorized Officer, M/s. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited. It is relevant to mention that, the auction sale was not completed on 24.09.2019 due to the absence of the bidders and further issued that a fresh Sale notice published in New Indian Express and Kannada Prabha newspaper on 04.11.2019 and has been issued sale notice on 05.11.2019 by the Respondents which was not completed on 20.11.2019, hence subsequently issued that a fresh Sale notice published in New Indian Express and Vishwavani newspaper on 07.12.2019 and has been issued sale notice on 09.12.2019 by the Respondents, were on bidder has participated and paid EMD of Rs.35,00,000/- on 24.12.2019 and participated in auction held on 27.12.2019 and made a bid of an amount of Rs.3,52,00,000/- the same produced herein for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as Annexure-R10 to R12. 27. 27. It is respectfully submitted that, the above Writ Petition on the issuance of the aforesaid Sale notice dated 06.09.2019 ; becomes infructuous and not maintainable, as the prayer sought for in the above Petition is limited to the scope of Quashing the Sale notification dated 06.09.2019." 9. Thus, the sale has taken place on December 27, 2019 and this Court has vacated the interim order on January 8, 2020. Petitioner has amended the writ petition and averred that after obtaining the certified copy, petitioner vide communication dated August 14, 2019, nominated one Shri. C.G. Rajendra as petitioner's valuer. The first respondent did not immediately respond. But in email dated August 28, 2019 (Annexure-D), first respondent has stated that contact details of the valuator were not given in petitioner's intimation nor did the valuer contact the first respondent. It is also stated that petitioner had contacted beyond three days fixed by this Court. 10. In substance, petitioner's case argument hinges around compliance of directions contained in paragraph No.7 in W.P. No. 31565/2019 with regard to the valuation of the mortgaged property. Admittedly, sale has taken place. Any person, including the borrower aggrieved by any measure referred in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act has a remedy by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. Further, petitioner's contentions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy before the DRT if so advised. All contentions of parties are kept open. 12. In view of disposal of this petition, all pending Interlocutary Applications do not survive for consideration, hence same are disposed of. No costs.