Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Vikas Vikram Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Manu Dixit, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.3- Bank.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to auction the land of petitioner and opposite party no.3 be further commanded to accept the remaining amount in installments and not to charge the then percent collection charges and other charges."
Fro the perusal of the record, it transpires that a recovery citation was issued against the petitioner which was assailed by him by filing a Writ Petition No.9136/2018 (M/S), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 02.04.2018 considering the facts and circumstances had granted indulgence to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding sum in equal installments of Rs.1,00,000/-. The relevant portion of the order passed on 02.04.2018 is reproduced as under:-
"1. That the petitioner will deposit first instalment of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one month from today and thereafter, shall pay the remaining amount in equal instalments of Rs. 1,00,000/- every month till the entire amount stands paid. Subject to the said payments, the recovery citation dated 13.3.2018 shall remain stayed.
2. In case of failure to deposit the three consecutive instalments by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondents-authorities to initiate the recovery proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law."
Subsequently, the petitioner had deposited some amount, but since he could not deposit the installments regularly, therefore, he made another application bearing C.M. Application No.26829/2019 in the aforesaid petition to seek an extension of time to deposit the same and considering the aforesaid, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 17.04.2019 had passed an order granting some indulgence to the petitioner and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
"Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 02-04-2018 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of one month from today and shall deposit the remaining amount in equal monthly installments to be deposited within a period of one year thereafter. The amount of interest shall be paid with the last installments."
It is now in the aforesaid backdrop submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is continuously paying the amount to the bank, which is being accepted, however, the Tehsil Authorities are troubling the petitioner and they are also threatening the petitioner to auction the property. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the prayer as produced hereinabove first has been sought.
From the perusal of the record including the statement, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 by the petitioner would indicate that even after granting an extension on 17.04.2019, the petitioner has not been able to clear the outstanding dues nor the installments paid by the petitioner is in consonance with the spirit of the order passed by the High Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances where the petitioner is a defaulter and despite having been granted opportunities on earlier two occasions has not been able to pay the amount in accordance with the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the order dated 02.04.2018 which is explicit and provides that in case the petitioner fails to deposit three consecutive installments, it shall be open for the respondent-Bank to proceed in accordance with law. In such circumstances where admittedly the petitioner has not deposited the installments in accordance with the order passed by the High Court, no indulgence can be granted in this second petition, which is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
After the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to make another application for modification as he had done earlier.
Considering the aforesaid, without commenting on merits, in case such course is open to the petitioner, he shall be within his rights to take recourse by filing a modification application, which shall be considered by the Court concerned on its own merits.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Rakesh/-