(1 of 2) [CMA-1481/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1481/2024 1. Rajesh Ahir S/o Shri Prahlad Ahir, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of House No. 17, Narayan Niwas, Dholi Bawdi, Udaipur Rajasthan. 2. Sunil Ahir S/o Shri Prahlad Ahir, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of House No. 17, Narayan Niwas, Dholi Bawdi, Udaipur Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Suman Ahir W/o Shri Sunil Ahir, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of House No. 17, Narayan Niwas, Dholi Bawdi, Udaipur Rajasthan. 4. Ravi Ahir S/o Shri Prahlad Ahir, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of House No. 17, Narayan Niwas, Dholi Bawdi, Udaipur Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Hriday Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Through Its Manager/authorized Representative Reg. Office - 341, S.m. Lodha Complex, Near Shastri Circlr, Udaipur, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naman Ojha HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 25/07/2024 1. On 27.05.2024, the following order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court:- “1. Mr. Jhamak Lal Nagda, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are ready and willing to pay the entire amount pursuant to the award impugned, however, they need some time. (2 of 2) [CMA-1481/2024] 2. This Court hardly finds any merit in the appeal, however in view of the submission made, let notice be issued to the respondent. 3. Issue notice. 4. Mr. Sarthak Bhatia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and prays for and is granted six weeks’ time to complete his instructions. 5. List this case on 15.07.2024. 6. In case, the appellants deposit 50% of the amount due as of today (Rs.15,15,681/-), recovery proceedings or execution qua the remaining amount shall remain stayed till the next date. 7. In case, the amount as aforesaid is not deposited by 30.06.2024, the instant order shall cease to operate and the respondent-Bank shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the aforequoted order has not been complied with by the appellants. 3. Though, learned counsel for the appellants tried to persuade the Court to extend the date for depositing the amount due, but considering the fact that the Court had passed the aforequoted order only when the willingness was shown by counsel that the appellants are prepared to pay 50% of the amount due i.e. Rs.15,15,681/- pursuant to the award impugned, then also the aforesaid order has not been complied with, is a sufficient reason for not continuing such interim order. 4. Accordingly, the stay petition stands dismissed. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 40-nirmala/-