bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2883 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8815 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 8815 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 8815 OF 2007 Anand Nivrutti Mohite ... Applicant v/s 1. The Hindustan Co-op. Bank Ltd. & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.M.Khankar for the applicant. Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for the Resp.No.1. Mr.Sameer Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 & 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The civil application has been filed by the applicant for permission to deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the respondent Bank and for condoning the delay in depositing the same. 2. The applicant had challenged the order passed in respect of the recovery certificate pursuant to which the sale of the petitioner’s property was directed by auction. The applicant approached this Court and by an order dated 18.3.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.8815 of 2 2007, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.3 lacs within eight weeks from that date. It was further directed that, if there was no compliance of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the amount would be deposited, the impugned order would stand and all objections to the same raised by the petitioner would no longer survive. 3. The petitioner was unable to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. However, on 14.5.2008 he moved the Court without notice to the respondent. An order was passed whereby the learned Vacation Judge directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.50,000/- by 21.5.2008 with the Bank. Thereafter, when the matter came up again on 22.5.2008 before the learned Vacation Judge, the petitioner was directed to have the Demand Draft ready for the entire amount. On 10.10.2008 when the civil application came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the civil application since it did not survive as the order of 18.3.2008 was a conditional order. The petitioner then preferred an L.P.A. when the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge or to take such steps as may be advised. 3 4. The petitioner, instead of approaching the learned Single Judge who had passed the order impugned in the L.P.A., has filed the present civil application for the same reliefs which were sought in Civil Application No.1246 of 2008. In my opinion, such reliefs cannot be granted and, therefore, the civil application is rejected. 5. In any event, today the property has been sold and the petitioner’s loan account has been closed as stated in the affidavit in reply. .....