J VENKATESAN Vs. R GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel on either side. It was an interim order passed by the Tribunal in an application filed, pending proceedings for confirmation of sale of an immovable property made by the respondent Bank. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available and in particular the order under challenge, it would be quite clear that the respondent is neither the borrower nor the guarantor, but a third party. Admittedly, the property belonged to one mr. D. S. Manian and Mr. Senthilnathan, who had obtained loan from the respondent bank. When the proceedings were pending, there was an agreement for sale of the property between the petitioner before the lower court, the third party and the owners of the property. Apart from that, it was agreed that the appellant was to deposit Rs. 18 lakhs towards full and final settlement of the loan taken by the borrowers and the bank has also accepted the same. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was deposited. When the matter was pending so, the property has been sold by the respondent bank on 24. 1. 2007 in favour of the third parties, who are the revision petitioners before this court. Pending proceedings, the said application was filed that the confirmation of the said sale should be stayed by way of an interim order. When the matter was taken up for consideration to grant the interim stay or otherwise, though the Tribunal was of the opinion that it was not the fit case for granting interim stay ex parte, has passed an order of status quo to be maintained. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioners, who are the purchasers of the property in the auction conducted by the bank, have brought forth this revision petition.