(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7592 OF 2009 Dilip s/o. Ramchandra Mane, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Gandhi Park, Parbhani, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The United Western Bank Ltd., Its Head Office at Ravivar Peth, Shivaji Circle, Satara, and their various Branches in India including the plaintiff Branch at Parbhani, through its Branch Manager Shri Sanjay s/o. Dattatraya Chowk, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, Authorized to sign on behalf of plaintiff Bank. .. Respondent no.1. 2. Amar s/o. Ramchandra Mane, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. New Rajesh Electrical, Nanal Peth, Parbhani. .. Respondent nos.2 3. Ashok s/o. Ranjitrao Kute, and 3 deleted. Age : 32 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Parbhani, Taluka & Dist. Parbhani. (2) .......................... Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 deleted. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent nos.2 and 3. Leave granted. The respondent nos.2 and 3 stand deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th November 2009, passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parbhani, below Exhibit 40 in Regular Darkhast No. 65/2002, thereby rejecting the review application filed by the present petitioner, and the order dated 28th October 2009, passed below Exhibit (3) 38, thereby issuing arrest warrant in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. 4. However, during the course of hearing, the petitioner has undertaken to deposit 25 % of the decretal amount and to make an application for one time settlement to the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank has also agreed to consider the application for one time settlement in accordance with the policy of the Bank. In that view of the matter, I find that it would meet ends of justice by passing the following order. 5. The petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned orders dated 28th October 2009 and 6th November 2009, passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parbhani, below Exhibits 38 and 40, respectively, in Regular Darkhast No. 65/2002, are quashed and set aside. (ii) However, the petition is partly allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25 % of the decretal amount with the respondent Bank, within a period of two weeks from today. (iii) The petitioner shall submit an application to the respondent Bank, for one time settlement, within a period of two weeks from today. The same shall be considered by the respondent Bank and necessary orders shall be passed thereon. It is made clear that on the order being received by the petitioner, regarding one time settlement, he shall make the (4) payment, as directed by the Bank, within a period of two months from the receipt of the said communication or as per the time frame fixed in the communication of the Bank. (iv) If the payment, as directed by the respondent Bank is made within the stipulated period, the decree shall stand satisfied and the execution proceedings shall stand disposed of. In the event, the petitioner fails to make the payment within the period aforesaid, the execution proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law. (v) In the event, the petitioner fails to deposit 25 % of the decretal amount with the respondent Bank, within a period of two weeks from today, the present petition shall stand dismissed automatically and the impugned orders shall stand revived automatically. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7592