JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the e-auction sale Notice dated 20.07.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent, The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.) Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ. 1. The Writ Petition has been filed to challenge the e-auction sale notice dated 20.07.2002. 2. Challenge to the said notice has been made after the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.15108 of 2022. It was decided by order dated 05.07.2022. A reference to the earlier order is necessary for the reason that the e-auction sale notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that out of the property of the guarantor, the petitioners purchased 2 cents of land and therefore, if the property of the guarantor is put to auction, it should be done after dividing the property sold by him to the petitioners and separate auction is to be conducted for 2 cents of land. 3. The prayer aforesaid is going against the petitioners' own statement referred to in paragraph 2 of the order in the earlier Writ Petition and the same is quoted hereunder: "2. After arguing the writ petition at length, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer dated 23.08.2017. A further prayer is sought to allow them to participate in the auction sale of the property so as to purchase the entire land to save their two cents of land therein. They also pray that if a higher bid is given than the bid offered by the petitioners, they may be given a chance to offer a higher amount then. If these liberties are given, the petitioners would be satisfied. However, it is clarified that those liberties may be availed by the petitioners and would not be affected by the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under challenge." 4. In the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought permission to participate in the auction for the entire land without a prayer that it should be divided in terms of the purchase made by them for 2 cents of land. In the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought permission to participate in the auction for the entire land without a prayer that it should be divided in terms of the purchase made by them for 2 cents of land. The further fact relevant to the issue, which was not raised by the parties in the earlier Writ Petition is about the challenge made by the petitioners to the attachment of the property of the guarantor, out of which 2 cents of land were purchased by them. The petitioners challenged the attachment proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and remained unsuccessful therein. The attachment of the entire property of the guarantor was thus confirmed. The petitioners then approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by maintaining an appeal, but failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit and thus, even in the appeal, they failed and thereby, the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal got confirmed. The effect of the confirmation order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is nothing but to attach the property of the guarantor, which includes 2 cents of land purchased by the petitioners. 5. The facts aforesaid were not given by the learned counsel for the Bank while arguing the first Writ Petition, and therefore, the petitioners were given liberty to challenge the order of the Recovery Officer before appropriate forum as per the provisions of law. It was not with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition to challenge the order of the Recovery Officer. 6. Now, looking to the fact that the attachment of the property of the guarantor was confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioners, nothing would survive to cause interference with the impugned notice. The property furnished towards guarantee cannot be divided due to sale of a part of the property by him. If the prayer of the petitioners is accepted, it would create complication. If guarantor would sell the property to many persons, then auction to be conducted for each part of the land. 7. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Recovery Officer on any of the grounds urged by the petitioners. 8. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected W.M.Ps. are closed.