S.HARKAULI,J. - (1.) 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-M997 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 Installments 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 Installments. The first Installment of half of the amount was deposited by Sri Ram Prasad within time on 4-4-1997. The second Installment which was payable by 4-5-1997 was deposited by 5-5-1997 as 4th May, 1997 was Sunday. The last Installment 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 Installment 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.
(3.) THE next dispute is that although the last Installment 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 anyone 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 or 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 or the tractor set aside. The respondent No. 4 has no concern with the auction of the tractor.;