ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Zainab I. Bharmal for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Lalit M. Patel for the respondent No.1. 2. Learned advocate Ms.Bharmal has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No.490 of 2019. (B) That the pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain respondent no.4 and 5 from creating further any right title or interest in the mortgaged property; (C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the DRT to expedite the hearing of the Securitization Application. (Cl). That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside all the Section 13(4) measures initiated by the respondent No.1-Bank in respect of the secured asset of the petitioner and direct the respondents to release the secured asset to the petitioner; in the alternative, (Cl). That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Hon’ble DRT-II to hear and finally decide the Securitization Application No.490 of 2019 within a period of 2 months. (D) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other just and proper remedy in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. In the year 2008, petitioner along with respondent Nos.2 and 3, applied to Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited for sanctioning of Home Equity loan of Rs. 14,85,000/-. 4.2. Pursuant to that, on 28.08.2008, the Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited vide Home Equity Loan Agreement, sanctioned the term loan of Rs.14,85,000/- to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and one Mrs.Hansaben Pravinchandra Singapuri, on terms and conditions as stipulated in the Home Equity Agreement dated 28.08.2008. The said loan agreement, respondent No.2 is the principal borrower and petitioner and respondent No.3 are co-borrower. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner, along with respondent No.3, stood as guarantors to the said loan herein. 4.3. The said loan agreement, respondent No.2 is the principal borrower and petitioner and respondent No.3 are co-borrower. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner, along with respondent No.3, stood as guarantors to the said loan herein. 4.3. In terms of the said agreement, the City Financial Consumer India Limited (the “CCFIL”) had assigned the said loan to Citibank N.A. and subsequently, Citibank N.A. had assigned the said loan to DCB Bank (Formerly Known as Development Credit Bank Limited) on 31.7.2010 (the “Assignment Date”). 4.4. That petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 had vide registered mortgage deed dated 05.09.2008, mortgaged two properties to the respondent No.1 as a security against the said term loan sanctioned by the respondent No.1. The description of the said properties are as under: 1. Residential Flat at Flat no. 101 and 102, 1st floor admeasuring 1080 sq fts ie. 100.34 sq mtrs, Sainath Apartment, Co-operative Housing Society, Hanuman Sheri, Sagrampura, Surat owned by Smt.Hansaben Sakarlal. 2. Residential Flat at Flat no. 103, 1st floor admeasuring 1080 sq. Fts. ie. 100.34 sq. mtrs, Sainath Apartment, Co-operative Housing Society, Hanuman Sheri, Sagrampura, Surat owned by Shri Pravinchandra Ishwarlal Singaputri. As per the valuation report dated 14.08.2008, the market value of the said properties was Rs.24,75,000 /-. 4.5. Pursuant to the said agreement dated 28.08.2008, the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the said agreement and Rs.14,85,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4.6. That pursuant to the disbursement of the sanctioned amount, petitioner along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein regularly paid the installments to the respondents till 2014 towards payment of the sanctioned loan and abided by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. 4.7. On 03.12.2014, respondent No.1 issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Asset Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) calling upon the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to repay the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,54,252.44/- along with costs and interest @ 16.60% p.a from 03.12.2014 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice, failing which respondent No.1 herein would exercise its powers under the Act in order to recover the said outstanding amount. 4.8. 3,54,252.44/- along with costs and interest @ 16.60% p.a from 03.12.2014 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice, failing which respondent No.1 herein would exercise its powers under the Act in order to recover the said outstanding amount. 4.8. On the same day, vide letter dated 03.12.2014, petitioner acknowledged the debt and informed the respondent No.1 that he shall within time stipulated in the said notice pay the said outstanding amount to respondent no.1. 4.9. On 04.03.2015, respondent No.1 vide notice under Rule 8 (1) read with Section 13(4) of SARFEASI Act informed the petitioner to hand over the peaceful possession of the said mortgaged premises to the respondent No.1. However, in the said possession notice under Rule 8(1), handing over of possession was notified qua only one mortgaged property namely Flat No.103, Sainanth Apartment, Hanuman Sheri, Sagrampura, Surat- 395003. No such notice was served qua taking over possession of the other mortgaged property namely Flat No. 101 and 102, Sainath Apartment, Hanuman Sheri, Sagrampura, Surat-395003. 4.10. On 06.3.2015, respondent No.1 took over the symbolic possession of the said mortgaged property by affixing public notice on the premises of the mortgaged property. 4.11. On 16.4.2015, respondent No.1 made an Application to the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act to identify the secured assets and direct the Commissioner of Police, Surat to render adequate police assistance for taking over the possession of the said mortgaged property. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.05.2014, the Hon’ble District Magistrate authorized the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate to take over the physical possession of the said mortgaged property. 4.12. Thereafter, the physical possession of the said mortgaged property was taken over by respondent No.1-Bank and the petitioner started residing at another place. 4.13. On 21.08.2019, the respondent No.1 auctioned the mortgaged property and sold the property to a third party. However, no sale/ auction notice under Rule 8(6) of SARFEASI Act, 2002 was served before 30 days to the petitioner in person nor was any public notice of sale published in any leading vernacular newspaper. Thereby, no opportunity to pay back the outstanding dues and get the property released within 30 days before the sale was given to the petitioner. 4.14. Thereby, no opportunity to pay back the outstanding dues and get the property released within 30 days before the sale was given to the petitioner. 4.14. That after the auction was concluded and the property was sold, the petitioner came to know about the said auction from the people residing in the said apartment and the neighbourhood. 4.15. That petitioner is a senior citizen and has been deserted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thereby has no contact with them since past 4-5 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 provided no information to the petitioner regarding the notices regarding measures of respondent No.1, if any, served upon them and nor have they taken any steps to challenge the said measures. 4.16. That thereafter, the petitioner filed application under RTI on 07.09.2019 before the office of the Collector, Surat to obtain information and documents regarding the actions taken by the respondent No.1 under SARFEASI Act. The said information was received by the petitioner on 13.09.2019. 4.17. Pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by this Court, petitioner has deposited Rs.7,50,000/- with the Registry on 16.12.2019 as against total outstanding amount of Rs.3,54,252.44/- as stated in the symbolic possession notice 04.03.2015. 4.18. Despite of service of notice in the present petition to respondent Nos.4 and 5 i.e. the auction purchasers, have not appeared before this Court to defend the matter. 4.19. Though respondent no.1 has auctioned the secured asset in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, no sale deed has been executed with respondent Nos.4 and 5 till date. 4.20. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned actions of the respondent No.1, on 03.10.2019, the petitioner filed the Securitization Application No.490 of 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the possession notice dated 04.03.2015 and sale dated 21.08.2019 of the mortgaged property on the grounds that the said measures undertaken by respondent No.1 contravenes mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. 4.21. Even though the petitioner has filed the Securitization Application No.490 of 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the auction sale within time, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay along with Sccuritization Application No.490 of 2019 as the petitioner also challenged the possession notice dated 04.03.2015. 4.22. The petitioner filed the above referred applications on 03.10.2019. 4.21. Even though the petitioner has filed the Securitization Application No.490 of 2019 before the Tribunal challenging the auction sale within time, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay along with Sccuritization Application No.490 of 2019 as the petitioner also challenged the possession notice dated 04.03.2015. 4.22. The petitioner filed the above referred applications on 03.10.2019. At the relevant point of time, the sale in favor of auction purchaser was not confirmed. The Tribunal issued notice and made returnable on 25.10.2019. On 25.10.2019 the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-Bank appeared and took time for getting instructions and the matter got adjourned to 07.11.2019. On 07.11.2019 the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-Bank made a statement before the Learned Tribunal that the sale is already confirmed on 19.10.2019 and therefore the Learned Tribunal directed the respondent No.1-Bank to provide information regarding the auction purchaser to the petitioner so that the petitioner can implead the auction purchaser as party and the matter is adjourned to 22.11.2019. In the meanwhile, on 08.11.2019, the respondent No.1-Bank provided the information and details of the auction purchaser to the petitioner. Immediately on the next hearing date, i.e. 22.11.2019, the petitioner filed an application for joining the auction purchaser as party respondent. However, the respondent No.1- Bank again took time on the said date for filing reply and the matter got adjourned to 09.12.2019. 4.23. That on the same day, i.e. on 22.11.2019, because of the delaying tactics of respondent No.1, petitioner was apprehensive that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 would create further third party rights in the mortgaged property and thereby, requested the Learned Tribunal to grant interim relief in terms of prayer 8(B) to restrain respondent Nos.4 and 5 from creating further third party interest in the said property and thereby protect the rights of the petitioner pending the final disposal of the Securitization Application. 4.24. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.11.2019 refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner on the grounds that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to grant the relief sought for since there is delay in filing of the Securitization Application. 4.25. Despite of depositing the entire outstanding amount before this Court, there has been no material progress in the proceedings before the DRT-II. 4.25. Despite of depositing the entire outstanding amount before this Court, there has been no material progress in the proceedings before the DRT-II. Though the Securitization Application was filed on 03.10.2019, despite of filing purshis for hearing repeatedly, the hearing for Delay condonation application did not take place before 18.06.2021 i.e. nearly after 8 months and thereafter, the matter has been posted for filing of reply by respondent-Bank. However, till date no reply has been filed by the respondent-Bank. 4.26. That Petitioner is a senior citizen and the secured asset was his only residential property. Petitioner has been abandoned by his sons i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 and has been living in old age home since then. The petitioner has relied on the order of Family Court directing respondents Nos.2 and 3 to provide maintenance to the petitioner as and when required. 5. From the above facts, it emerges that petitioner has deposited Rs.7,50,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 12.12.2019 with the Registry on 16.12.2019. 6. The Securitisation Application filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the DRT-II’). Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The amount of Rs.7,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner on 16.12.2019 shall be paid to the respondent-Bank by the Registry within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Learned advocate Mr.Patel to provide the details of the bank account in which the aforesaid amount is to be transferred by the Registry. (ii) The respondent-Bank shall keep the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in ‘No Lien Account’ in fixed deposit subject to outcome of the Securitisation Application No.490 of 2019 pending before the DRT-II. (iii) The respondent-Bank is also directed to give credit of the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner after adjudication of the aforesaid Securitisation Application by the DRT-II on merits from the date of deposit by the petitioner in this Court if the petitioner succeeds before the Tribunal, otherwise, refund the amount to the petitioner with interest from the date on which it is transferred in the account of the respondent- Bank. (iv) The petitioner shall make an application before the DRT-II for early hearing of the Securitisation Application No.490 of 2019 considering the age and condition of the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner shall make an application before the DRT-II for early hearing of the Securitisation Application No.490 of 2019 considering the age and condition of the petitioner. (v) The Tribunal shall consider such application in accordance with law and finally dispose of the Securitisation Application No.490 of 2019. (vi) The petitioner is directed not to execute the sale-deed in favour of the auction purchaser without permission of the DRT-II. 7. It goes without saying that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the Tribunal shall decide the Securitisation Application No.490 of 2019 and other interim applications, which are filed or which may be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.