As per case facts, Late V.P. Singh and Petitioner No. 1 formed a partnership firm that availed an overdraft facility from the Bank, mortgaging properties. Upon default, the Bank initiated ... recovery under the SARFAESI Act, publishing a sale notice. Petitioners alleged that after the initial auction failed, the Bank entered into a private treaty without their consent, which they learned of through a civil suit filed by Respondent No. 2. They claimed to have redeemed part of the mortgage and remained in possession. The Bank contended an auction was conducted where Respondent No. 2's husband was the highest bidder, and petitioners were aware of the sale but failed to challenge it before the DRT. The question arose whether the Bank's alleged private treaty sale was valid given procedural non-compliance with the SARFAESI Act and if the petitioners' right of redemption subsisted without a registered sale deed. Finally, the Court held that petitioners had knowledge of the auction and impliedly consented by not challenging it within the limitation period before the DRT. It clarified that a sale certificate, once issued, extinguishes the right of redemption, and registration is not mandatory for its effectiveness as per Supreme Court rulings. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that disputed facts couldn't be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and time-barred remedies couldn't be revived, directing the Bank to hand over the sale certificate to the auction purchaser's legal heirs.