1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.128/2006 (Harbans Singh & Ors. Vs. SBB&J & Anr.) Date of Order :: 7th July 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. V.K.Sharma, for the petitioners. .... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed jointly by the petitioner No.1 Harbans Singh, petitioner No.2 Darshan Singh and petitioner No.3 Teja Singh against the notices as issued by the respondent-Bank on 19.11.2005 (Annex.3) and on 28.12.2005 (Annex.4) with the prayers that such notices may be quashed and that the respondents may be directed to issue the statement of bank account and also to allow instalments for payment of the balance of the loan amount. On 12.01.2006, while entertaining this writ petition, this Court noticed the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that they were ready to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four lacs) with the respondent-Bank within two weeks and then to square up the account but were seeking some breathing time for making arrangements to make payment of the reasonable dues of the bank. This Court issued notices in the writ petition and stayed coercive proceedings on the condition of the petitioners depositing Rs.4,00,000/- on or before 27.01.2006. 2 The petition thereafter remained pending consideration but then, an application came to be moved on behalf of the petitioner No.1 that he was seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition. It was stated before the Court on 24.05.2006 by the counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 that he has withdrawn this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner No.1. The matter was thereafter adjourned for quite some time and then came up before the Court on 02.07.2008 when nobody appeared for the petitioner and the matter was placed the next day and then it was passed over on 03.07.2008 and has, thus, been placed before the Court today. Mr. V.K. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners intend to approach the Bank concerned for redressal of their grievances and they may be permitted to do so and the writ petition may be disposed of with such directions. So far the proposition of the petitioners approaching the Bank is concerned, no any observation is requisite from the Court as the petitioners are free to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law and in the manner permissible by law. So far subject matter of this writ petition is concerned, there does not appear any error or illegality in the recovery proceedings as adopted by the respondent-Bank so as to call for interference. 3 The petitioners were initially granted indulgence on the condition of their making payment while entertaining this petition. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 has withdrawn this writ petition. The said petitioner has not been prayed to be transposed as proforma respondent. Withdrawal of writ petition by petitioner No.1, who is stated to be having common cause of action with the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, brings out the position that no separate order in favour of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 could be passed because dismissal of the writ petition qua the petitioner No.1 practically results in dismissal of the writ petition as a whole. Viewed from any angle, no writ or direction could be issued in this matter now. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK