HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9612 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghvendra P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Sri Ashish Saxena, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no.2 and 3-State Bank of India. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No.1218 of 2024, whereby coercive measures have been stayed against the appellant during pendency of the appeal in terms of the order challenged in the appeal which was passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mathura in Complaint No.149 of 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal could not have been entertained without compliance of the statutory mandate contained in second proviso appended to Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the appellant deposits 50% of the amount directed to be paid by the District Consumer Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghvendra P. Singh, Pankaj Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anurag Srivastava Smt. Hema .....Petitioner(s) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Redressal Commission. 4. A perusal of the order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum challenged in appeal indicates that the District Commission has directed the complainant himself to repay the entire loan amount with interest within a period of thirty date and thereafter the bank would return her gold jewellery hypothecated by the borrower. In case the bank is unable to return the gold jewellery the bank would calculate the value of difference of loan amount and the value of jewellery and pay the same to the borrower. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the appellant-claimant himself has not complied with the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2024 and in these circumstances the respondent-Bank is not liable to pay any amount. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute this submission made by the learned counsel for respondent-Bank. The bank has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the State Consumer Redressal Commission. 7. In these circumstances, when the learned counsel for the petitioner could make point out any error or illegality in entertaining the appeal after the bank has made a deposit of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, there appears to be no illegality in admission of appeal and passing of the interim order. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 9612 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench