Whether the High Court has gone beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings before it. ? When the challenge was for foreiting the 10% of deposited amount by authorised officer - granting relief providing time to deposite balance sale amount is nothing but travelling beyond scope of relief asked for and as such liable to be set aside.

 Whether  the High Court  has gone beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings before it. ?

When the challenge was for foreiting the 10% of deposited amount by authorised officer - granting relief providing time to deposite balance sale amount is nothing but travelling beyond scope of relief asked for and as such liable to be set aside.

 the auction purchaser moved   an   application before   the   Recovery   Officer   seeking   some   clarity   in   the matter.   The same was replied to by the Bank.   However, thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application of the   petitioner   on   28.11.2019   and   forfeited   10%   of   the amount deposited by him.  Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   Recovery   Officer, Respondent   No.1   herein   had   preferred   an   appeal   being Appeal No.21 of 2019 before DRT­II, The said appeal came to be dismissed by the DRT­II. Thereafter Respondent No.1 herein ­ original writ petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.91 2 of 2019 before the DRAT challenging the order of DRT dated 18.03.2020.  The DRAT, however did not grant any interim relief to him and consequently Respondent ­ Bank herein sought to put the property to auction on 10.11.2021. The application   to   seek   interim   relief   from   the   DRAT   was renotified on 17.11.2021 i.e. after the date of the proposed auction and therefore apprehending that his interim relief application   would   become   infructuous.Though the appeal before the DRAT was pending and what was challenged before the High Court was with regard to not granting any interim relief against the auction  The High Court has passed the following order: “13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we grant one opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount along with damages quantified at Rs.5 Lakhs, within the next two weeks. The deposit shall be made with the respondent bank within the aforesaid period. In case, the deposit is made in these terms, the respondent bank 3 shall proceed to deliver the possession of the properties to the petitioner. The Recovery Officer is directed to release the 25% of the amount deposited by the petitioner with him, along with up to date interest, within the next 10 days to the respondent Bank, and to confirm the sale. The Recovery Officer shall take all steps under the law to perfect the title of the petitioner.

The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that what was challenged before it was regarding non­grant 4 of any interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT. Main   appeal  was   yet   to   be   considered  by  the   DRAT  on merits.  From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court was considering   the   final   decision   of   the   DRAT.     The   order passed  by   the   DRT  confirming   the   order   passed  by   the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the auction   purchaser   was   yet   to   be   decided   by   the   DRAT. Therefore, the High Court as such has gone beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings before it

  original   borrower   has   preferred   the present Civil Appeal Nos. 1302­1303 of 2022.