- (1.) S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 was the owner of certain land and tractor. In a proceeding for recovery of loan taken by respondent No. 3, the tractor and the land were attached. By the auction dated 24-1-1997 the tractor was auctioned for a sum of Rs. 78,000. By a separate auction dated 28-1-1997 the land of respondent No. 3 was auctioned and was purchased at the auction by respondent No. 4. However before the sale could be confirmed, the respondent No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 7602 of 1997, in which State of Uttar Pradesh, Tehsildar and the State Bank of India, were made respondents. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the State Bank of India and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court passed an order dated 4-3-1997 disposing of the writ petition No. 7602 of 1997, finally by directing that the recovery proceeding against the petitioner Sri Ram Prasad, would remain stayed provided he deposits half of the amount sought to be recovered together with the recovery charges by 4-4-1997 and the remaining amount together with the recovery charges in two equal instalments by 4-5- 1997 and 4-6-1997. THE petitioner was also required by the said order to deposit upto date interest till the date of payment of each instalments. THE first instalment of half of the amount was deposited by Sri Ram Prasad within time on 4-4-1997. THE second instalment which was payable by 4-5-1997 was deposited by 5-5-1997 as 4th May, 1997 was Sunday. THE last instalment which was payable by 4-6-1997 was deposited on 2-6-1997 i. e. before time. THE amount was not deposited by respondent No. 3 himself but it was actually deposited by the petitioners who had purchased part of the land from respondent No. 3 by sale-deed dated 7-4-1997. It is not disputed that the entire amount together with recovery charges and interest has been deposited by the petitioner as directed by this Court by order dated 4-3- 1997 in Writ Petition No. 7602 of 1997. There are two basic disputes, one is that the instalment due on 4-5-1997 was deposited on 5-5-1997. Since 4-5-1997 was Sunday, therefore, the deposit on 5-5-1997 can not be said to be belated, but should be treated as within time. The next dispute is that although the last instalment payable on 4-6-1997 was paid two days earlier i. e. on 2-6-1997 but cash was not deposited by the respondent No. 3 himself. It was deposited by the petitioners. This contention on the face of it is unacceptable. When this Court directed the respondent No. 3 to deposit certain amount, it was implied in the order that he should deposit the amount himself or would get it deposited through any one else. The remaining respondents in this writ petition can only be concerned with the deposit being within time. They can not be said to be concerned, in any manner, by whom the money was got deposited. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has disputed that the entire amount was not deposited, relying on paras 12 and 13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State of U. P. According to respondent No. 4 the amount recovered from the auction of the Tractor should not have been considered while calculating the total amount payable. It is in my opinion the choice of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, as to whether they wish to have auction of the tractor also set aside or whether they wish to have separate auction of the land alone set aside. In this case it is obvious that the petitioner have no interest in the tractor. The respondent No. 3 also does not appear to be interested in having auctioned of the tractor set aside. The respondent No. 4 has no concern with the auction of the tractor.
(3.) IN the circumstances there seems to be no impediment in treating the auction of the tractor as valid and depositing only the amount which remained due after adjusting the amount realised from the tractor. IN view of this since the entire amount has been deposited by the petitioner coupled with the respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No. 7602 of 1997 the recovery proceeding must abate and the auction in favour of respondent No. 4 of the land must be set aside. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has relied upon the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules for arguing that application under Rule 285 (i) was not maintainable being belated. The argument is not relevant because the petitioners get their right through respondent No. 3 on the strength of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7602 of 1997 and not because of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.;