HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 401 of 2009 (M/S) Nadeem Ahmad and another …. Petitioners .. Versus The Nainital Bank Ltd. and others … Respondents Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 20th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This order is being passed on the consent of both the parties. Admittedly a possession notice has been issued in favour of respondent no. 3 under Section 13 (2) read with Rule 9 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 with regard to the land which the petitioners have mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. The petitioners have prayed that the land in dispute may not be auctioned and they are ready to pay the entire due amount if easy installments are fixed. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has given his consent to this prayer of the petitioners and, therefore, the following orders are being passed on the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent- Bank : In case the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh) with the respondent-bank by 31st March, 2009, then for the remaining amount, the respondent-bank shall fix easy installments of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) each to be paid within a period of six months. It has been stated at the bar that the total amount is about nine lakh of rupees. 2 In view of this, the respondent-Bank shall not proceed with the auction proceedings. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioners commit a single default in payment, then the order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent-bank will be at liberty to initiate auction proceedings against the petitioners afresh. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.3.2009 Avneet