JUDGMENT : P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed by the 1 st respondent in W.P.(C)No.42253 of 2022, aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in that writ petition. 2. W.P.(C)No.42253 of 2022 has been filed by the 1 st respondent herein claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of Exts.C5 to C7 properties mentioned in Ext.P1, seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directions or orders directing the 1 st respondent to cause valuation of C5-C7 properties mentioned in Exhibit P1 order within a time prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directions or order commanding the 1 st respondent to accept the value of the properties in respect of C5 to C7 mentioned in Exhibit P1 and grant No Objection to lift the order of attachment issued by the 3 rd respondent. 3. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directions or order directing the 3 rd respondent to cause the lifting of attachment over the properties covered by C5 to C7 in Exhibit P1 order on payment of the value as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 4. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directions or order directing the 4 th respondent to efface the attachment over properties covered by C5 to C7 in Exhibit P1 order once the payment of the value of the property is remitted by the petitioner with the 1 st respondent as directed by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge ordered valuation of the afore properties, and as per order dated 13.04.2023, directed the appellant to accept the higher value shown by the valuers, i.e., Rs.5,85,21,989.89 and grant a 'no objection' to lift the order of attachment issued by the 3 rd respondent herein over the aforesaid properties. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2023 reads as follows: “ See order dated 30.01.2023 and 03.02.2023. The valuers have filed reports. As per the report filed by one valuer the value of the property is Rs.3,48,81,000/-. The second valuer has valued the property as Rs.5,85,21,989.89/-. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2023 reads as follows: “ See order dated 30.01.2023 and 03.02.2023. The valuers have filed reports. As per the report filed by one valuer the value of the property is Rs.3,48,81,000/-. The second valuer has valued the property as Rs.5,85,21,989.89/-. There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to accept the higher value shown by the valuers i.e., Rs.5,85,21,989.89/- and grant a “No Objection” to lift the order of attachment issued by the 3 rd respondent. It is made clear that the valuations made by the valuers as aforesaid, will not affect the contention of the 2 nd respondent that the valuation by both the valuers are high and the property actually will not fetch the said value. The said contention is kept open for final consideration. If the petitioner deposits the above said value within two days, the 3 rd respondent shall lift the attachment over the properties covered by C5 to C7 in Ext.P1” 4. As per the order referred above, the 1 st respondent herein/petitioner deposited the amount with the appellant/1 st respondent and the attachment came to be lifted. 5. Later, the 1 st respondent herein/petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 on 24.09.2024 seeking an order directing the appellant to deposit the afore amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit pending adjudication of the liability. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.11.2024, allowed that application. The said order reads thus: “This application has been filed for a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider deposit of the amount of Rs.5,85,21,989.89 pursuant to the order dated 13.04.2023 in an interest bearing fixed deposit pending adjudication of the liability. On 13.04.2023, this Court had considered the reports filed by the valuers of the property and directed the 1 st respondent to accept the higher value shown by the valuers, i.e., Rs.5,85,21,989.89 and grant a No Objection to lift the order of attachment issued by the 3 rd respondent. It was made clear that the valuations made by the valuers as aforesaid, will not affect the contention of the 2 nd respondent that the valuation by both the valuers are high and the property actually will not fetch the said value. The contention was left open for final consideration. It was made clear that the valuations made by the valuers as aforesaid, will not affect the contention of the 2 nd respondent that the valuation by both the valuers are high and the property actually will not fetch the said value. The contention was left open for final consideration. This Court further ordered that if the petitioner deposits the above said value within two days, the 3 rd respondent shall lift the attachment over the properties covered by C5 to C7 in Ext.P1. Pursuant to the said order, it is submitted that the petitioner deposited the amount and the attachment is also lifted. Since the case is still pending, the prayer in this petition is that the amount which was deposited may be kept in an interest bearing account so that the amount will fetch income. I find justification in the prayer. There will hence be a direction to the 1 st respondent to keep the deposit in an interest bearing account. Necessary action shall be taken within 10 days from today.” 6. Immediately, on passing of the above order, the appellant filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 on 22.11.2024, praying that the direction issued to the appellant as per order dated 15.11.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 may be vacated, by reviewing the same. The learned Single Judge, vide the order dated 18.02.2025, dismissed the application, which is now being challenged in this writ appeal filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act ,1958. 7. Heard Sri.Vinod Bhat.S., the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for 1 st respondent, Sri.Harikumar G., learned Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent and Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 5 th respondent. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the order directing the appellant to keep the money in a deposit earning interest is illegal and cannot be sustained. He submitted that on the deposit of money by the 1 st respondent on 13.04.2023, as directed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has given credit of the same to the account of the principal borrower and the application filed by the 1 st respondent herein to keep the amount in an account bearing interest, after a lapse of one and half years and that too after getting the attachment lifted and creating further encumbrances, cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the principles from the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, which had been applied by the learned Single Judge, has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case and since, the entire reliefs as sought for by the 1 st respondent herein/petitioner has already been granted by the learned Single Judge, as per order the dated 13.04.2023, the applications filed subsequently are not maintainable. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the 1 st respondent, the learned Counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Senior Counsel for the 5 th respondent would submit that the learned Single Judge as per order dated 13.04.2023 did not give permission to the appellant to credit the amount into the account of the principal borrower and without getting permission or challenging that order, and getting such permission, the appellant is barred from raising contentions as raised in I.A.No.3 of 2024. They contended that the proceedings relating to the recovery of the debt is still pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and it is inappropriate to credit the amount deposited in one's account, pending finalisation of the proceedings. They would also submit that the entire exercise now being carried out by the appellant is in collusion with the principal borrower to cause undue hardship to these respondents and hence, prayed that this appeal may be dismissed. 10. As stated earlier, the writ petition has been filed by the 1 st respondent/petitioner claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of the properties involved in this case, which was under attachment as per an order passed by the 3 rd respondent in a recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The main relief, which was sought for in the writ petition, is to lift the attachment of properties C5 to C7 mentioned in Ext.P1, after accepting the value of the properties which is to be ascertained after a valuation by an expert. It is to be seen that as per order dated 13.04.2023, which is referred above, the learned Single Judge has practically allowed the entire prayers as sought for and has directed to give a 'no objection' to lift the attachment after accepting the highest of the value shown by the valuers. It is not in dispute that the 1 st respondent/petitioner has complied with the above order and the attachment now stands lifted. It is not in dispute that the 1 st respondent/petitioner has complied with the above order and the attachment now stands lifted. It is thereafter, the 1 st respondent herein/petitioner, after a period of one and half years, has filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking a direction to keep the deposit in an interest bearing account, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order is one rejecting an application made by the appellant to review the afore order thus directing the appellant to keep the amount in an interest bearing account. 11. A vital aspect which comes to fore in all these proceedings, is that all of them were done behind the back of the principal borrower (M/s. Ajith Associates Private Ltd.). The principal borrower was never made a party in the writ petition and he was not heard while passing the orders, including the impugned order. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge to value the properties, to accept the value of the properties, release the attachment and to keep the amount in a interest bearing account, without hearing the principal borrower, who has much stakes in the matter, cannot be in any manner be justified, since it will cause considerable prejudice to him. If so, for this reason alone, we have no doubt in our mind that the orders passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 and in I.A.No.1 of 2024 cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 18.02.2025 in I.A. No.3 of 2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No.42253 of 2022 is set aside. It is made clear that the parties will be at liberty to prosecute the writ petition and the interim applications pending in it after arraying the principal borrower as a party to those proceedings.