Any deposit made by the petitioner would only be subject to the decision of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad on the matter.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent-Bank.

2. On 20th March, 2017 after hearing the counsel for the parties, the following order was passed :

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the Appeal No. 228 of 2016 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in which next date is fixed on 2.5.2017, Learned Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has directed attachment of the immovable property described in the warrant of the attachment dated 16.1.2017. Petitioner proposed to liquidate the entire dues remaining out of the total amount of Rs. 1,48,35,830.31 plus interest, cost and charges as may fall due. The balance sum, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 86,31,545/-.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank seeks time to take instruction on this proposal of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the attachment has already been effected in the meantime.

Let the matter appear on the next Monday i.e. on 27.3.2017 within first ten cases as an unfixed case, so that the counsel for the respondent-Bank would come out with instruction by way of an affidavit.

Till then, status quo as of today in respect of the property be maintained."

3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. The judgment passed in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandan reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 has also been relied upon and submitted that such matters when the petitioners have statutory remedy available tinder the Act, this Court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction Respondents also state that property stands attached by Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 18th March, 2017. It is also reiterated that petitioner should raise his plea before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exigency to move this Court arose only on account of the fact that a longer date has been given in Appeal No.223 of 2016 by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad i.e. 2nd May, 2017 while coercive steps were being taken in the matter. Petitioner is inclined to liquidate the amount outstanding with the Bank as has also been recorded in the previous order. Learned counsel submits that petitioner undertakes to make payment of Rs.10 Lakhs by 15th April, 2017 and another Rs.10 Lakhs by 30th April, 2017 before the matter will be taken up on 2nd May, 2017 before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. Petitioner has also sought extension of the order of status quo, in the meantime, so that outstanding dues can be repudiated through one time settlement with the Bank.

5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for parties in the light of relevant facts pleaded and noticed hereinabove. It would not be out of place to observe that this Court had sought the response of the Bank on the proposal of petitioner to liquidate the entire remaining dues outstanding in a time frame, on account of the urgency shown by him while the matter pending before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad was posted on a longer date i.e. 2nd May, 2017. Bank is expected to allow liquidation of the outstanding dues and liability if sincerely offered by judgment-debtor or defaulting borrower in stead of persisting with an unnecessary litigation. However as has been submitted by learned counsel for the Bank since the matter is before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, they are not keen on liquidation of aforesaid dues in the meantime. This Court therefore refrains from observing on the proposal advanced by petitioner relating to deposit of further amount with the Bank before the matter is adjudicated by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. It goes without saying that any deposit made by the petitioner would only be subject to the decision of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad on the matter. Respondent-Bank also contends that property stands attached by Recovery officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ran