JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The petitioner took a loan form the State Bank of India, Budhana Branch, Muzaffamagar for the purpose of purchasing a tractor for an amount of Rs. 66,000/-. An agreement was executed between the parties for repayment of the loan in instalments. There was default in payment of the aforesaid loan and thus recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition in this Court (Writ Petition No. 2015 of 1983) which was disposed of by this Court on 14.2.1983. The Collector, Muzaffarnagar was directed therein to dispose of the application made by the petitioner for selling a portion of the land under Section 157-A the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. In this writ petition it has been alleged that despite the orders passed by this Court an auction took place and the petitioner's land has been sold in clear violation of the direction given by this court. The auction proceedings have been challenged in this court on the aforesaid ground besides the ground that there has been irregularity in holding the sale. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the auction in question was held on 31-3-1983 but the sale proceeds had to be returned by the Tehsildar on account of the stay order passed by this court on 12-4-1983. It is thus clear from the averments made in the courter-affidavit that the sale which had taken place could not be finalised because of the interim order passed by this Court and the amount received after auctioning the petitioner's property had even been returned to the auction purchaser. 3. As far as the recovery of the out-standing demand is concerned, we are of the opinion that the respondents are entitled to recover the aforesaid amount as the loan had in fact been taken. As the sale which had been returned to the auction purchaser the respondent-Bank will now been entitled to recover the out-standing amount of loan along with interest due in accordance with law. 4. Before parting, it may be observed that the learned counsel for the partitioner has prayed that some reasonable time be granted for paying the entire out-standing demand for which the petitioner can give an undertaking. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the State Bank of India also on this question. 4. Before parting, it may be observed that the learned counsel for the partitioner has prayed that some reasonable time be granted for paying the entire out-standing demand for which the petitioner can give an undertaking. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the State Bank of India also on this question. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that in case the petitioner files his personal affidavit within three weeks containing an undertaking regarding payment of the amount due as intimated by the Bank to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order, recovery proceedings/initiated at the instance of the State Bank of India shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner pays fifty percent of the outstanding demand by 30th June, 1990 and the remaining fifty percent by 31st December, 1990. In case the undertaking is not filed within the time granted the respondent-Bank will be entitled to realise the entire out-standing demand forthwith. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 7. Certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties within ten days on payment of usual charges.