IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13551/2025 a/w CMPMO No. 5042025 Decided on: 11.08.2026 CWP No. 13551/2025 Sanjay Rana & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. .....Respondents CMPMO No. 504/2025 Sanjay Rana & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocates in both the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Both these petitions have overlapping facts, hence, they were being listed together. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these are being decided by this common order. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. CWP No. 13551/2025 has been instituted by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondent-Bank to extend the benefit of the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme by three months from the date it came to an end, i.e. 29.06.2025. Prayer has also been made to permit the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- payable under the OTS Scheme to the respondent-Bank along with any other additional charges payable for the delayed payment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Petitioners/their predecessors had availed loan from the respondent-Bank to the tune of ₹6,00,000/- on 08.10.2004. Petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. A suit for recovery of Rs.9,96,075/- was accordingly instituted by the respondent-Bank on 13.05.2011. It was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., on 20.03.2015. The respondent-Bank was also held entitled to future interest at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount. Respondent-Bank filed Execution Petition No. 67/2015 for recovery of the decretal amount. During proceedings of the execution petition, an order was passed on 24.06.2025 issuing warrant of recovery against judgment debtor No.1 therein (Sh. Mehar Chand, father of the petitioners) for realization of the decretal amount in the manner mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 3 24.06.2025, the petitioners instituted CMPMO No. 504 of 2025. In terms of order dated 27.08.2025 passed in the said petition, property of the petitioners was not to be put to auction without leave of the Court, and status quo in respect of the property, as it existed on that date, was to be maintained. The said order has continued to remain in force till date. In CWP No. 13551 of 2025, the petitioners have placed on record office letter dated 29.03.2025 of the respondent-Bank, whereunder the petitioners were permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- under the OTS Scheme within 90 days. Petitioners, in token of their acceptance of settlement of the loan account under the OTS Scheme, had deposited an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- with the respondent-Bank on 29.03.2025. The balance amount of Rs.5,55,000/- was required to be deposited within 90 days in terms of office letter dated 29.03.2025. The petitioners did not deposit the aforesaid amount within the prescribed timeline of 90 days. This writ petition was instituted on 21.08.2025 with the prayer that, though there had been delay on part of the petitioners, they are willing to deposit the amount quantified at Rs.5,55,000/- under the OTS Scheme by the respondent- Bank along with additional charges payable for the delayed payment beyond the period of 90 days. Noticing the stand of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank was directed to have instructions in the matter vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed in this 4 writ petition. Vide order dated 27.08.2025, the petitioners were permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.5,55,000/- with the concerned Bank as under: - “Learned counsel for the respondents prays that as per his instructions, respondents are seeking some short time to file reply. Let needful be done, by the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, as prayed for by Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners are hereby granted liberty to deposit the Bank Draft, bearing No. 138066, dated 18.08.2025, drawn in the name of Manager Himkachal Gramin Bank Bhawarna Branch, for an amount of Rs.5,55,000/-, with the Bank concerned. The Bank is directed to accept the said Bank Draft and in case, the Bank Authority do not accept the Bank Draft, it will be construed to be the contempt of the order of the Court. However, acceptance thereof will be without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents. List on 15.09.2025.” It is not in dispute that the above amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The deposit made by the petitioner is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the office letter dated 29.03.2025. Keeping in view the object of the OTS Scheme, the fact that the petitioners had already deposited the up-front amount of Rs.1,40,000/- within the stipulated timeline and have also deposited the 5 balance amount of Rs.5,55,000/- pursuant to orders passed in the writ petition as also keeping in view the delay in depositing the amount beyond the prescribed timeline, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of both these petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to represent to the respondent-Bank with a proposal for paying the settlement amount under the OTS Scheme/by making extra payment for the delay in making payment. In case such representation/proposal is made within two weeks, it shall be considered by the respondent-Bank, in accordance with law, keeping in view the OTS Scheme and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners have deposited the agreed amount under the OTS Scheme, though beyond the period prescribed therein. The order be passed within four weeks. In the process of deciding the representation, an opportunity of hearing shall also be provided to the petitioners. Copy of order be also communicated to the petitioners. Till decision of the representation, coercive methods shall not be used against the petitioners by the respondent-Bank. Proceedings pursuant to order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Execution Petition No. 67/2015 for execution of judgment and decree dated 20.03.2015 shall also stand deferred till such decision. It is however clarified that the above protection granted to the petitioners shall stand vacated on their failure to represent to the respondent-Bank in terms of this order. 6 The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 11th August, 2026 (rohit)