Prem Singh Vs. HP State Cooperative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Anr. CMP No.1666 of 2025 15.01.2025 Present: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Chandel, Advocate, for the respondents. Previously the property of the applicant, in the case at hand, was to be auctioned on 21.12.2024. A public notice in this respect had been issued, which is appended along with CWP No.15755 of 2024 as Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved thereto, the petition bearing No.15755 of 2024 had been filed by the applicant to getting the auction process stayed. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Court despite having observed that prima facie the petition CWP No.15755 of 2024 does not appear to be maintainable, had shown indulgence and stalled the process of auction by permitting the present applicant to deposit the entire loan amount on or before 24.12.2024. In the judgment so passed on 20.12.2024, the Court had it made absolutely clear that in the event of non-payment of loan amount, respondents-Bank would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter. Despite an indulgence having been shown in terms of judgment dated 20.12.2024, the applicant had failed to deposit the loan amount. Auction, in the case at hand, has yet again been fixed for 16.01.2025. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the present application has been filed seeking extension of time. An application for extension, in the case at hand, should have been filed on or before 24.12.2024, as that was the last date, which had been permitted by the Court in judgment dated 20.12.2024, for deposit of the amount due and payable by the present applicant. The application for extension, in the case at hand, has been filed at the 11th hour. Previously also, as has been observed hereinabove, the writ petition was filed on 20.12.2024, when the auction was fixed for 21.12.2024. The pattern is self-evident, approach the Court at the 11th hour. Other than the aforesaid, in judgment dated 20.12.2024, the Court had made absolutely it clear that if money is not deposited on or before 24.12.2024, then the respondents- Bank would be free to proceed with the auction. Besides the aforesaid, the reason cited in the application seeking extension of time does not provide a plausible reason for extending time. For no concrete agreement despite having availed time has been placed on record to demonstrate that the applicant has entered into an agreement to sell his property, wherefrom money to pay the loan dues would be made available. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no merit in the present application and the present application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. While dismissing this application, it is made clear that the amount incurred by the respondents-Bank on conducting the second auction, be also recovered from the applicant, in the case at hand. Application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Vacation Judge 15th January, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)