Judgment : RAVI S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. 1. This is not an issue in which the Court would like to interfere. In two matters the Court has already expressed its views that the time has come that the High Court must take a fresh look on loans which are given by the nationalised banks and the recoveries are challenged by the debtors on the mode of realisation of it. 2. IN this case, on one aspect there is no issue that there is a loan which remains undischarged consequently leaving the position of an admitted debt which will have to be paid to the creditor, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the respondent. If all such amounts of admitted loans not discharged to the banks are put together all over the nation regarding matters on which stay orders were granted by Courts it will reveal a staggering amount. It is the view of the Court (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7313 of 1994, Plastic Audyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd., 265 G. I. C. Road, Bareilly v. The Collector/m. Bareilly and others, decided on 11-9-1996) that the stay orders granted by Courts preventing steps for the recovery of admitted debts as loans may have also contributed to the deficit financing of the nation's economy. This case is one of those. The petitioner, M/s. Hussain Brothers and Company and others is a company engaged in the manufacture of carpets in the erstwhile district of Varanasi and, today, Bhadohi. The petitioners do not dispute that they took a loan from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bhadhoi Branch, Bhadohi. To prevent the recovery of these loans, the petitioners had also filed a suit against the Bank in the Court of the Civil Judge, at Gyanpur. This was suit No. 1 of 1994; M/s. Hussain Brothers and Company and others v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bhadohi Branch, Bhadohi and others, seeking a relief that the Bank as defendants were not entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3, 78, 000. 00 or any other amount from them as plaintiffs through the recovery certificate for realisation of the loan as arrears of land revenue. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners applied for withdrawal of the suit. 3, 78, 000. 00 or any other amount from them as plaintiffs through the recovery certificate for realisation of the loan as arrears of land revenue. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners applied for withdrawal of the suit. On the date fixed for the consideration of their application, i. e. 8-9-94, the plaintiffs (the present petitioners) did not appear before the trial Court with the result that the Court dismissed the suit. Thus, this writ petition was filed after the suit had been dismissed. 3. THE issue on which there is no dispute between the parties is that there is loan which remains undischarged. This loan has been permitted on the cash credit account of the petitioners. Nevertheless, it remains a loan as a debit on record of the cash credit account payment into this account by the petitioner will discharge the loan. THE respondents Bank took recourse to realise the debt on record of the loan account and, subsequently, initiated recovery proceedings. 4. THE petitioners contend that there was some difficulty in discharging the loan for personal reasons and other causes of payments not received from foreign buyers. THE petitioners admit that of any payment which was to be received from the purchasers abroad, there was an arrangement that should payment be received it would be tendered to the Bank direct to discharge the debit against the loan. In commerce all these are arrangements where invoices or bills of lading are treated as negotiable instruments and are cleared through the Bank. THE consignment is held by the Bank unless payment is received. With a debt admitted, the Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter to permit an outstanding debt to remain and pile up interest on the principal. The economic scene of the nation is changing and business in future will not be done on subsidies but faith, if banking credit as an institution is to survive. 5. WHEN the Court suggested to the counsel for the petitioners that he may ad vise his clients to ensure that the loan is discharged within a time bound schedule instead of litigation, the only answer the Court received was that the writ petition is not pressed. This was a very shabby response of the indulgence which was being granted by the Court. 6. THE writ petition is dismissed as it is misconceived and without merit. This was a very shabby response of the indulgence which was being granted by the Court. 6. THE writ petition is dismissed as it is misconceived and without merit. THE interim order dated 25 March, 1994 is discharged. Petition dismissed.