As per case facts, a partnership firm availed an overdraft from the respondent Bank, mortgaging properties. Upon default, the Bank initiated SARFAESI Act recovery, publishing a sale notice. Petitioners alleged ... that an auction was not held as scheduled, and a private treaty was entered into without their knowledge or consent. They subsequently paid a significant amount to release one mortgaged property and protested the private treaty, claiming they remained in possession and paid property taxes. They discovered the alleged private treaty when another respondent filed a civil suit for execution of a sale deed. The question arose whether the Bank's actions, particularly the alleged private treaty and lack of proper notice, violated SARFAESI Act procedures, thereby keeping the petitioners' right of redemption alive. Finally, the Court determined that the petitioners had knowledge of the auction proceedings from the beginning and had even accepted the auction purchaser's deposit for one property, later settling part of the loan for another. It was noted that disputed facts could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction and that the petitioners failed to challenge the auction before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the prescribed time. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court concluded that the right of redemption stands extinguished once the sale certificate is issued, which the Bank had already done, making the borrower's right of redemption non-subsistent.