DILIP Vs. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.

(3.) The petitioners to the present petition, who are borrowers, have questioned the order dated 8th June, 2009, passed by respondent no.4 District Deputy Registrar, confirming the auction sale. The petitioners have also questioned the order dated 31st March, 2012, passed by respondent no.5 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, in Revision Application No.R-149 of 2010, in addition to the validity of the auction Sale conducted by respondents no.1 and 2.