2025:HHC:10286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5931 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Balbir Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent- Bank. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law officer, for respondent-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with with notice (Annexures P-5 & P-6), whereby property of the petitioner, as detailed therein, has been ordered to be auctioned for recovery of outstanding loan amount of Rs. 3,73,885/-, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid notice and direct respondents-Bank to grant him some time to deposit the outstanding amount. 2. Though having taken note of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, prima-facie this Court is of the view that present petition is not maintainable, however, having taken note of the 2 fact that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the outstanding amount and learned counsel representing the respondent-bank has no objection to the same, matter can be disposed of at this stage without calling for reply from the respondent-bank, which is represented by Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. 3. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent-bank, submitted that at present, there is no One Time Settlement Scheme for settlement of loan of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner was called upon to deposit the outstanding loan amount, but despite notice, he has not deposited the same ad as such, respondent-bank was compelled to initiate auction proceedings for sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner, however, since petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding amount, respondent- bank can grant some time to the petitioner to clear his dues. 4. Though, as has been observed hereinabove, this Court is fully convinced that present petition is not maintainable and this Court in no eventuality would have interferred in the matter, had the petitioner not expressed his intention to get the matter settled. Since petitioner, who is present in Court, is ready and willing to pay the outstanding loan amount within a period 3 of three months, coupled with the fact that he has already paid sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and has undertaken to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of one week and remaining outstanding amount within a period of three months thereafter, this Court leaving the question of maintainability of the present petition open and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding loan amount as undertaken by the petitioner. Statement of the petitioner to this effect on Oath has been recorded and placed on the file. 5. However, it is made clear that in case petitioner fails to honour the statement made by him, respondent-Bank would be at liberty to proceed further with the auction proceedings. Till the expiry of three months from today, Annexure P-5 & P-6 shall not be given effect to. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge