IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4867 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.08.2009 Rameshwar Dass and another Petitioners Versus Punjab and Sind Bank and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Diwan Sharma Advocate for the petitioners Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) CM Nos.13916 of 2009 Application allowed, written statement is taken on record. CWP No.4867 of 2009 It is an admitted fact that the petitioners purchased the property, in dispute, in an open auction for an amount of Rs.19 lacs. Respondent No.2 was sitting in that property, as a tenant. With a view to buy peace, respondent No.2 made an application to the Recovery Officer that he is ready to pay an amount of Rs.25 lacs for the property, in question. His prayer was not accepted. He went in appeal, which was accepted, vide order dated 25.8.2008. Respondent No.2 was directed to pay Rs.25 lacs for the property, which was earlier purchased by the petitioners. He was also directed to pay interest @ 5% on the amount deposited by the petitioners i.e. Rs.19 lacs. Respondent No.2 has deposited the entire amount. Thereafter, Civil Writ Petition No.4867 of 2009 the petitioners went in appeal against the order, mentioned above, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.3.2009 (P2) and it was observed that the officer was justified in accepting the application made by respondent No.2, for purchase of the property in question. Hence, this writ petition. On the first date of hearing, the petitioners made an offer that they are ready to pay an amount, more than Rs.25 lacs for the property purchased by them. Taking note of that, notice of motion was issued and parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is necessary to mention here that in ordinary circumstances, writ petition filed by the petitioners was not maintainable. However, with a view to secure their interest and also interest of the original owner, notice of motion was issued. On 4.8.2009, following order was passed by this Court:- “None has put up appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. As on today, respondent No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.25,95,000/-, for the property in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner states that he is ready to pay more than the amount mentioned above. He further states that let there be inter-se bidding, between the parties, for the property in dispute. In view of above, this writ petition is adjourned to 20.08.2009. Copy of this order be sent to respondent No.2 with a direction that he should come present to participate in the bidding for the property in dispute.” Today, counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has instructions to withdraw this writ petition. Stand taken clearly demonstrates that the offer made on 27.3.2009, when notice of motion was issued, was not bona fide. Petitioners have only made an attempt to drag the respondents in unnecessary litigation. When the time has come to fulfill the 2 Civil Writ Petition No.4867 of 2009 undertaking and pay amount, more than the respondent No.2, the petitioners wish to withdraw this writ petition. Such like attitude is not appreciable. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for by counsel for the petitioners, however, with a cost of Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioners within one month from today with the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to that officer. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the cost, as indicated above, the Secretary be at liberty to move an application for execution. 20.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 3