NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for stay of the notice of auction dated 11.2.2008 published in the daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar'.
(2.) IT has been stated that the respondent, in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of S.R.F.A., E.S.I.F. Act, 2000, has directed the assets of the petitioner and another co -sharer to be sold by auction as the landed property was mortgaged for taking the loan. It has been stated that the next date i.e. 2.8.2007 was fixed to deposit amount by the petitioner, but she could not arrange the same in time, as directed by this Court. Earlier, it has been stated that the petitioner alone is not the owner of the property and there are other co -sharers also. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that almost on the same ground, the petitioner has been able to obtain the order of stay of the auction process vide order dated 23.7.2007 by giving assurance that whatever the genuine dues of the bank may have, the same shall be paid if some time is granted to the petitioner to arrange the money. In view of the said stand and the assurance of making payment of all the dues to the bank, this Court by the said order directed the bank not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the next date fixed. The next date fixed was 2nd August, 2007, but not a farthing was paid by the petitioner in accordance with the said undertaking before this Court. The respondents even thereafter waited for several months, but even after lapse of several months, nothing has been paid by the petitioner; (The respondents having no alternative have published the impugned notice for auction. When the notice for auction has been issued, the petitioner has again rushed to this Court by filing this Interlocutory Application and praying for stay of the auction process. It has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand. She had misrepresented before this Court that all the amounts shall be paid though she had not to pay any amount. On that misrepresentation and undertaking, the Court has granted interim relief. The petitioner, thus, conveniently delayed the auction process for more than six months by her malicious design. The petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and she is not entitled to the relief, prayed for.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials, appearing on record.;