1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : ORDER: <<<>> D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.316/2010 Bhup Singh Bhadu & Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. Date of Order :: 24th May 2010. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAGDISH BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Kailash Khatri,for the appellants. ..... BY THE COURT By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioners- appellants seek to question the order dated 10.05.2010 in Writ Petition No.629/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge, on an application moved by the petitioners seeking enlargement of time granted earlier by the Court for making deposit against the loan account, ordered as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents will be free to proceed with the auction proceedings. However, the State will not make the bid final upto 25th May, 2010. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount of Rs.46 lacs before 25th May, 2010 and in case the petitioner deposits the amount before 25th May, 2010 then the respondents will be free to cancel the bid upon accepting the amount of Rs.46 lacs.” 2 From the submissions as made in the memo of appeal, it appears that the petitioners have filed the writ petition questioning the proceedings adopted against him under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act of 2002') wherein on 19.01.2010, the writ Court passed the following order:- “If the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.15 lacs within period 15 days from today to the respondent bank then further proceedings shall remain stayed. It is made clear that remaining due amount with interest would be paid by the petitioners within further four months in four equal installment.” According to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, though the requisite amount was not deposited within a period of 15 days as required by the order dated 19.01.2010 but then, from time to time, the appellants made certain deposits to the extent that they allegedly deposited a sum of Rs. 21,50,000/-, but not the entire amount. It has also not borne out if the requisite installments as per the order dated 19.01.2010 were paid or even offered by the appellants. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-appellants in regard to the impugned order dated 10.05.2010 that the appellants had only prayed for enlargement of time granted by the Court and hence, only 3 such a prayer was required to be considered by the learned Single Judge; and the learned Single Judge was not right in passing the order to the effect that the bid shall not be finalised upto 25.05.2010 while requiring the appellants to deposit the amount to the tune of Rs.46 lacs before 25.05.2010. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and have scanned through the material placed on record. It is apparent that though the petitioners-appellants have invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court in the matter where the bank had taken up the proceedings under the Act 2002 and the Court extended an indulgence in the first instance by passing the order dated 19.01.2010 granting them 15 days' time to deposit the sum of Rs. 15 lacs and then requiring them to deposit further amount in four equal installments in four months but then, the appellants chose not to comply with the requirements of the interim order so passed by the writ Court. It is an admitted position that even after the order dated 19.01.2010, the first deposit said to be of an amount of Rs. 12.5 lacs, was made by the appellants only on 19.02.2010. Obviously, the appellants never bothered to adhere to the requirements of the order dated 19.01.2010 and did not deposit the requisite amount within 15 days. Even the deposits allegedly made thereafter, do not fulfill the requirements of the order dated 19.01.2010. 4 It appears that instead of carrying out the compliance of the orders passed by the Court, the appellants chose to move an application seeking enlargement of time as late as on 07.05.2010. It is apparent that such an application was moved by the appellants only when the bank proceeded to adopt the auction proceedings for their failure to comply with the requirements of the order dated 19.01.2010. We find from the impugned order dated 10.05.2010 that even when the petitioners-appellants had been in gross default and had not complied with the requirements of the order passed earlier, yet the learned Single extended rather an extra indulgence to the appellants by permitting them to make deposit of Rs. 46 lacs before 25.05.2010. Challenge to the said order so passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.05.2010, by way of this intra-court appeal cannot be countenanced and rather we are of the considered view that the appellants by their conduct have sufficiently shown that they were not entitled for any indulgence by way of equitable relief at all. The submission as made that the prayer was only for enlargement of time and the learned Single Judge was not right in issuing directions for further deposit and not for confirming the final bid after 25.05.2010, in our opinion, could only be said to be rather unfortunate expression on the part of the person who sought indulgence in equitable jurisdiction of the Court. 5 We find absolutely no ground to show any further indulgence to the appellants. No case for interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out. As a result of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the Writ Petition No.629/2010. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (JAGDISH BHALLA),CJ. s.soni 6