IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.96 of 2011 Paramjeet Singh ………..Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Mr. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State/ respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Dated: 21st July, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) CLMA No.5345 of 2011 (Delay Condonation Application) Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Special Appeal No.96 of 2011 In the Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged the citation for recovery amounting to ` 5,46,510/-, by taking recourse to subterfuge, as it was contended that the petitioner has repaid the entire loan. While the writ petition was being heard, the counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged that he is ready and willing to pay entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation, alongwith recovery charges, in easy installments. Considering such submission, the learned Judge passed the judgment and order under appeal and thereby extended the time to satisfy the recovery citation, despite that the present appeal has 2 been preferred. Neither in any of the pleadings filed in the writ petition nor in any of the pleadings filed in the appeal, the appellant has made any effort to demonstrate that the claim of ` 5,46,510/-, as demanded in the citation for recovery, is not due and payable. It has not been stated what loans were obtained, what was the repayment schedule thereof, what was the agreed rate of interest, how much has been paid and, whether considering such payment, it would appear to a prudent person that the amount claimed in the recovery citation is excessive. In the writ petition, it was contended that there is a scheme for debt waiver of 2008. No attempt, however, has been made to show that the said above waiver scheme apply to the loans obtained by the appellant. It was contended that there is also a onetime settlement scheme and that in terms thereof a rebate of 25 percent of the eligible amount is available. It was not contented that the appellant wanted to take advantage of the said onetime settlement scheme and accordingly, approached the bank for the purpose of making onetime settlement. Infact, the case, with which the appellant had approached the Court, was not at all, entertainable. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal, inasmuch as, by the judgment and order under appeal, despite the writ petition being not entertainable, the Court extended the time to pay and settle the claim made in the citation. ( V.K. Bist , J.) ( Bar in Gh osh , C.J.) 21.07.2011 21.07.2011 Arpan