ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “It is therefore prayed that an order or direction to the respondent bank may be granted that respondent bank should take the final auction amount from the petitioner and also issue Non objection certificate to the petitioner and the notice dated 02.12.2023 (Annex.-15) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that an Original Application bearing No.195/2002 was filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short as ‘the DRT’) for recovery of the amount and the said application was allowed by the tribunal while holding that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.4,82,86,341.79/-from the respondents Nos.3 to 6. The execution proceedings were initiated bearing No.45/2008 in Original Application No.195/2002. 3. The petitioner’s father Shri Pukharaj (since deceased) preferred a writ petition bearing No.9981/2009 before this Court and vide order dated 04.07.2012 (Annex.-7), the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the DRT, Jaipur to decide the objections filed by the petitioner within a period of one month. The petitioner has also preferred a civil suit, which was dismissed by holding that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the DRT. The petitioner approached the DRT and submitted an application while stating that he is ready to pay the actual amount, which was due with respect to the plot No.76, the property which was mortgage with the respondent-bank. 4. The respondent-bank filed reply to the objections and the DRT while deciding the objections, dismissed the application on 11.10.2018 (Annex.-8). The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent-bank and again submitted that he is willing to pay the amount due to the respondent-bank along with the interest. The petitioner came to know that an order dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the DRT while appointing Commissioner and in pursuance of the said order, the possession of the remaining plot was taken. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent-bank and again submitted that he is willing to pay the amount due to the respondent-bank along with the interest. The petitioner came to know that an order dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure-9) has been passed by the DRT while appointing Commissioner and in pursuance of the said order, the possession of the remaining plot was taken. The tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2019 (Annexure-10) recorded that the possession of the other plot has been taken and for plot Nos.75 and 76, the requisite police aid was not made available as such and the learned tribunal directed the Police Commissioner to make available the requisite police aid. 5. The legal heirs of late Shri Pukhraj Agarwal executed a release deed in favour of the petitioner-Suresh Agarwal on 29.11.2023 (Annex.-11). The petitioner had preferred writ petition bearing No.157/2020 before the Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court had stayed the auction proceedings and after that an undertaking was submitted by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court that he is ready to pay the final auction amount and if he fails to pay such amount, then, the petitioner will handover the vacate possession of the house to the respondent-bank. 6. The petitioner also filed an application before the DRT and stated that according to the undertaking filed before the Hon’ble Court in the previous writ petition, the petitioner is ready to pay the final auction amount to the respondent-bank and the said application was dismissed by the DRT on 22.11.2023 (Annex.-13) and thereafter, notice dated 02.12.2023 (Annex.-14) was issued for vacating the premises in question. Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that :- (a) Once the petitioner is ready to pay the amount which was due to the bank, then in such circumstances, the order of the learned tribunal as well as the impugned notice deserve to be quashed and set aside. (b) The petitioner is in possession of the property in question and is having valid and lawful documents in his favour and has also constructed residential house on the property in question by spending a huge amount and thus, the petitioner should have been permitted to deposit the due amount in order to secure the residential house as well as the plot in question of the petitioner. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the private respondent No.8 preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the same was allowed on 12.12.2023. An amended cause title has been filed and the same has also been taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the private respondent No.8 submits that:- (a) The petitioner has intentionally not impleaded him as a party respondent in the writ petition despite the fact that it was well within his knowledge that after the conclusion of the auction proceedings, the sale certificate was issued in his favour. (b) The petitioner has concealed material fact that he has preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.157/2020, which came to be disposed of on 27.07.2022 (Annex.-A/3) with a liberty to the respondent-bank to conduct auction proceedings in relation to the property in question while granting the petitioner the permission to participate in the said proceedings. (c) The petitioner was free to participate in the auction proceedings and offer a suitable amount for purchasing the property but he did not do so and the respondent No.8 was declared as the highest bidder and accordingly, the sale certificate was issued in the favour of respondent No.8. (d) The petitioner had given an undertaking before the High Court, Jodhpur, in SBCWP No.157/2020 while stating that “the petitioner has given an undertaking before the Hon’ble Court that after the conclusion of the auction, if the amount which has been finalized in the auction is not paid by the petitioner to the bank then the petitioner will vacate the said house and give possession to the bank within one month from the date of the conclusion of the auction.” He, thus, submits, that the petitioner was not declared as the highest bidder in the auction proceedings and thus upon conclusion of the said auction proceedings, the petitioner is bound by his undertaking in respect to vacating the said house and giving the possession to the respondent-bank. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 11. It is an admitted position that certificate of the sale of the property in question has been issued in favour of respondent No.8 on 22.11.2023 (Annex.-A/1) and the learned counsel for the private respondent No.8 has also stated at Bar that the registry for the said property in question has been made in his favour on 04.12.2023. 12. 11. It is an admitted position that certificate of the sale of the property in question has been issued in favour of respondent No.8 on 22.11.2023 (Annex.-A/1) and the learned counsel for the private respondent No.8 has also stated at Bar that the registry for the said property in question has been made in his favour on 04.12.2023. 12. It is also writ large, that as the petitioner had been granted permission to participate in the auction proceedings, he was well aware that the respondent No.8 was declared as the highest bidder for the property in question but despite that, the petitioner has not impleaded the respondent No.8 as a party respondent in the writ petition, which shows that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands and has deliberately not impleaded the respondent No.8 as a party respondent in the writ petition. 13. It is also seen that the private respondent No.8 in his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has placed on record the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annex.-A/3) passed by this Court in the writ petition bearing SBCWP No.157/2020 wherein, the petitioner was granted liberty to participate in the auction proceedings, however, the same order has not been placed on record by the petitioner and neither any pleadings to that extent has been taken by the petitioner. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition shows that the petitioner disclosed that the writ petition No.157/2020 was preferred by him before the Hon’ble Court but, such disclosure is only to the extent that the Court had stayed the auction proceedings whereafter, the petitioner had given an undertaking before the Court that the petitioner is ready to pay final auction amount and if he fails to do so, then, the petitioner will handover the possession of the house in question to the respondent-bank The undertaking given by the petitioner is placed on record as Annexure-11. 14. 14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that since the petitioner had duly participated in the auction proceedings and the respondent No.8 was declared as the highest bidder for the property in question and a sale confirmation certificate was duly issued in his favour and the property in question has also been registered in favour of respondent No.8 and also the fact that the petitioner had tried to conceal the material facts, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.