S. No. 16 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 383/2024 Farah Iqbal and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Q. R. Shamus, Advocate Vs. UCO Bank through its Chairman and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. N. A. Dendru, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE O R D E R 05.08.2025 CM No. 4371/2025: 1. Applicants/petitioners seek modification of orders dated 06.06.2024 and 22.11.2024, precisely on the ground that they approached the Bank with Rs.3.00 lacs as they could not arrange Rs.7.00 lacs within prescribed time period. The same was refused by the Bank. In addition to this, Bank has also rejected the claim of applicants under OTS Scheme. 2. Petitioners, in main petition, have assailed Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFEASI Act dated 16.11.2021 and Notice under Section 13(4) dated 14.03.2022. 3. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 directed that no coercive action would be taken against the applicants/petitioners subject to payment of Rs.4.00 lacs. On 06.06.2024, this Court ordered that if the petitioners did not deposit the amount as directed earlier, the interim protection granted to them would be vacated. Again on 12.11.2024, when there was no representation on behalf of applicants/petitioners to report regarding depositing of the amount, this Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution with a liberty to the Respondent-Bank to proceed against the applicants/petitioners for recovery of the amount in accordance with law. 4. Applicants/petitioners moved an application bearing CM No.7320/2024 for restoration of writ petition being WP(C) No. 383/2024, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.11.2024. This Court restored the writ petition vide order dated 22.11.2024 subject to the condition that the applicants/petitioners would deposit further Rs.7.00 lacs before the Respondent-Bank within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of said order with a further stipulation that in case direction to deposit was not complied with by the applicants/petitioners, the Respondent-Bank would be free to proceed against the applicants/petitioners to secure the asset(s) so as to recover the amount due from the applicants/petitioners. 5. Order dated 22.11.2024 is a preemptive order, vide which writ petition was restored to its original number subject to condition that the applicants/petitioners would deposit Rs.7.00 lacs before the Respondent-Bank within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the said order. The condition to deposit Rs.7.00 lacs is prerequisite to restore the writ petition. 6. Since the applicants/petitioners have failed to comply with the order dated 22.11.2024, therefore, this application being without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. In view of the fact that the main writ petition was restored to its original number subject to the condition that the applicants/petitioners would deposit Rs.7.00 lacs, which they did not, therefore, writ petition WP(C) No. 383/2024 is also dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 05.08.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 11.08.2025 09:09