JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - Petitioners took agricultural loan of Rs. 30,500/- from respondent No. 1, State Bank of India and executed an agreement for repayment of the loan in ten half yearly instalments. The instalments were not paid in time. Thus, the bank initiated proceedings for recovery of the outstanding dues. It is at this stage that the present writ petition was filed. 2. At the admission stage on 24.5.1978 Hon'ble H.N. Seth and Hon'ble B.N. Sapru, JJ. Passed the following stay order : "Issue notice. Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners may serve respondent No. 1 personally with the notice of the application and the writ petition within three weeks from today. Notice issued to the respondents shall state that the stay application shall be listed for hearing on 10.7.1978. In order to enable learned counsel to effect service on respondent No. 1, as directed, office will hand over necessary copies of notice etc. to him by tomorrow. He will file an affidavit indicating that he has served the respondents before 10.7.1978. Heard counsel for the petitioners. We are satisfied that unless an interim order is made, recovery may he effected from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue which it may not be possible to compensate in terms of money. We accordingly direct that until 10.7.1978 and subject to further orders that may be passed on that date, respondents shall not take steps to recover the amount of Rs. 24,699.22p. from the petitioners provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with respondent No. 1 before 1st July, 1978 and further goes on deposting monthly instalments of Rs. 8,000/- and 4,000/- respectively by 1st August and 1st September. In case of default the stay order shall stand vacated. List on 10.7.1978." 3. A bare perusal of the stay order will show that the petitioners were permitted to repay the outstanding demand in instalments. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the opinion that as far as the merit of the case is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. Admittedly the petitioners took loan from the State Bank which they have not repaid. Thus, we do not think it a fit case for interference in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Admittedly the petitioners took loan from the State Bank which they have not repaid. Thus, we do not think it a fit case for interference in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Recovery proceedings relate to the admitted amount of loan advanced to the petitioners. In any view of the matter it may be that the petitioners have cleared off the entire outstanding demand in terms of the stay order granted by this Court. 5. For the reasons, stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed. The stay order is discharged. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.