- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Sudeep Seth and Vinod Kumar Srivastva, holding brief of Sri Anand Kumar.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Sabhajit Yadav, J.) by which the respondents were allowed to make repayment of the loan amount under demand in easy installments and also directed that the tractor which has already been auctioned in favour of third person shall stand released with further direction that the Bank shail return the said tractor to the petitioner though auction purchaser was neither impleaded nor a prayer was made that auction proceedings be quashed. The auction was held on 4-8-2007 and writ petition was filed on 6-11-2007, i. e. , afterthree months from the date of auction and the possession of the tractor was also delivered to the auction purchaser. Srisudeep Seth,learned Counsel for the Bank submits that this is third writ petition by the petitioner arising out of the same transactions of loan which was taken by his father, who failed to make repayment there of. Citation of de mand was earlier issued in the name of Ramjas (deceased) who challenged the said recovery proceedings by filing W. P. No. 4017 of 2006 (MS ). Before the learned Single Judge petitioner admitted the liability of the amount of loan but only prayer for easy installments. The Court showed indulgence and vide order dated 23-11-2006 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that amount demanded be paid in the manner given there in. However, it appears that father of the petitioner could not make payment and he died. After his death second writ petition was field by the sons of deceased Ramjas namely, the present respondents again challeng ing the same recovery saying that since the father had died, therefore, order could not be complied with. In Writ Petition No. 3675 (MS) of 2007 learned single Judge recorded a categorical finding that in view of the fact that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner (should be father of the petitioners) had already been disposed of with certain directions, therefore, for the same cause of action subsequent writ petition is not maintainable. The Court, therefore, gave liberty to the respondents, who were petitioners in that writ petition, to approach the Bank making reauest for accepting the amount in installments as directed by this Court in earlier writ petition No. 4017 (MS) of 2006.
(3.) THE Court refused to entertain the second writ petition challenging the same recovery proceedings but in view of the fact that father had died gave the opportunity to the respondents to approach the Bank for making deposits in easy installments. It is the case of the appellant Bank that the respondents did not approach the Bank at all for making deposits as per the installments provided in the earlier writ petition butfiled third writ petition again challenging the same recovery when citation of demand was issued.;