{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T (1) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.528/2009 (STATE BANK OF PATIYALA & ANR. VS. LAL CHAND) (2) D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.492/2009 (STATE BANK OF PATIYALA & ANR. VS. LAL CHAND) Date of Judgment : 7.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Singhal & Mr. Purshottam Gehlot, for the appellants. Mr. G.J. Gupta, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by respondent of Writ Petition No.11/2009 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dated 15.1.2009 and 9.3.2009 passed in review petition passed by Single Judge in above mentioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent herein. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this writ-appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in disposing of the writ petition by issuing certain { 2 } directions? 4. This is what the learned Single Judge held while disposing of the writ petition: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that substantial amount has already been deposited and petitioner will deposit remaining amount within a period of three months from today. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to deposit the remaining amount within a period of three months. Upon depositing the said amount, the property of petitioner may be released. However, it is made clear that if petitioner fails to deposit the due amount within the stipulated time, then respondents are free to proceed in the matter for finalization of the property in question. With the above observation/ direction this writ petition is disposed of.” 5. It is this order which is impugned by respondent of writ petition i.e. Bank in this intra-court appeal. 6. The respondent is a borrower. He took loan from appellant Bank. He, however, defaulted in its repayment and hence appellant Bank initiated recovery proceedings for realisation of their unpaid dues from the respondent (writ petitioner) by taking recourse to provisions of Securitisation Act and accordingly served demand notices calling upon the { 3 } respondent (writ petitioner) to clear the outstanding. It is against this action of the bank, the respondent felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition. It is this writ petition which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge by passing impugned order quoted supra giving rise to its challenge by the Bank in this appeal. 8. Mere perusal of aforequoted order would go to show that all that the Single Judge has done while disposing of the writ petition is to grant some indulgence to writ petitioner to clear his outstanding within three months and clear his loan account. Such indulgence while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted by writ court to avoid prolonging of the dispute between the parties 9. In a case of this nature, we do not find any case to interfere at the instance of either of the parties and much less the Bank. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant (Bank) then contended that the writ petition out of which this appeal arises itself was not maintainable because the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing appeal before appellate authority under the Act against the impugned demand notices. 11. We do not agree to this submission. In the first place, the writ petition was disposed of by granting time to writ petitioner to deposit the outstanding. Secondly, such order by exercising discretion could be passed under Article { 4 } 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding availability of any alternative remedy. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, then contended that the writ petitioner despite granting of time by the writ court, failed to deposit the entire outstanding within the time fixed by Single Judge in the impugned order. If that be so, then in terms of impugned directions, the appellant (Bank) would be in a position to proceed for making recovery of balance amount from the writ petitioner in accordance with law as if no order had been passed. In other words, if the writ petitioner was in a position to take benefit of impugned order to save his property by clearing his entire outstanding within three months given by writ court, but now, if he failed to ensure compliance of impugned order within the time as stated by appellant, then he cannot any more take benefit of such order. It would be now for the Bank to proceed for recovery of their remaining outstanding dues from the writ petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions of Securitisation Act as if no order had been passed. 13. In view of this discussion, we need not examine the legality of order dated 9.3.2009 passed by Single Judge in Review Petition filed by Bank. It is not really necessary. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. Anil/