JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the borrowers and is directed against the orders dated 13.11.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge sitting in the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in WPA 2366 of 2024.

2. The appellant no. 1 is the wife of the appellant no. 2. The appellants are the partners of a partnership firm under the name of M/s Kushal Tea Factory having its place of business at Torulpara, Pandapara Kalibari, P.O.- Pandapara Kalibari, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Jalpaiguri (hereinafter referred to as the 'said partnership firm'). The partnership firm availed a the term loan of Rs. 1,49,40,000/- from UCO Bank, Thana Road, Jalpaiguri Branch, District - Jalpaiguri. The said partnership firm in order to secure the loan provided a one storied dwelling house in the name of appellant no.2 situated at Pandapara Kalibari being R.S. plot no.1792/3194, R.S. plot no.1792/3195, 1792 under Khatian No. R.S.6945/1/9, 6945/1/0, 6945/1/11, 2 6945/1/12, 6945/1/13, 6945/1/14, 6945/1/17-27 for J.L. No.07 under Mouza – Kharia, District Jalpaiguri measuring about 12.00 cottahs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said property’) as a security asset by depositing the Title Deeds bearing nos.I-3533, I-5936, I-5937, I-1077 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Deed’).

3. The partnership firm defaulted in repaying the said term loan and as a consequence whereof the account was declared as a non-performing asset (for short 'NPA'). Since the appellants failed to repay the debt in spite of sufficient opportunity being given to the appellants, the bank invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation& Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Notice under Section 13(2) was followed by the steps being taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by the bank. The appellants did not offer to liquidate the loan amount at that stage. Bank/Secured Creditor, thereafter published a sale notice under the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short 'the 2002 Rules'). The property was put up for sale through e- auction. The auction took place on 30.10.2024. The successful bidder, according to the bank, has put the initial payment and further time was provided as per the statutory requirement to pay the balance sale price.

4. The appellants filed this writ petition on 7.11.2024, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the bank to accept the proposal for one time settlement submitted by the appellants before the bank.

5. The appellants claim to have deposited a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- just prior to the property being put up into auction and offered to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,21,50,000/- within seven days after receiving the acceptance of such OTS.

6. Before the learned Single Judge, the Bank raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.

7. The learned Single Judge took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.  (2023) 13 SCR 53 and by an order dated 13.11.2024, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to adjourn the matter in order to give a special chance to the appellants to enable them to show bona fide by either transferring the balance sum of Rs. 1,21,50,000/- or to bring a demand draft for such amount. The writ petition was directed to appear in the list on the very next day that is on 14.11.2024. The learned Single Judge after noting that the appellants herein in spite of being given an opportunity to show their bona fidedid not avail the same, dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 14.11.2024.

8. The borrowers have approached this court with this intra Court appeal challenging the orders dated 13.11.2024 and 14.11.2024.

9. Mr. Kali, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in the meantime the appellants have already deposited the balance amount. The