JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The two petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the advertisement for sale of land measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas, as published in the Tribune on January 11, 1999, be quashed. 2. A few facts, as relevant for the decision of the case, may be briefly noticed. 3. M/s. Gurcharan Singh and Sons is a partnership firm. We are informed by the counsel for the petitioners that this firm belongs to Harvinder Singh and Jagmohan Singh, sons of Gurcharan Singh, and Smt. Satwant Kaur wife of Jatinder Pal Singh. The two petitioners before us are Jatinder Pal Singh and Smt. Manjit Kaur. First petitioner is the son of Gurcharan Singh. Thus, he is the brother of Harvinder Singh and Jagmohan Singh, who are the partners. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. 4. The firm took a loan form the Punjab Financial Corporation in the year 1984. It committed default in repaying the amount. Thus, proceedings under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 were initiated against the firm as well as against the guarantors. The petitioners who are the guarantors, were also impleaded as parties. The trial Court passed an order for recovery. The petitioners challenged that order and failed. The property of the guarantors was also held liable to be sold. They sought relief against that. They failed. Even Civil Revision No. 1588 of 1999 filed by the present petitioners was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated April 1, 1999. 5. After the order of the Civil Court, the Corporation proceeded to recover its dues. By advertisement dated January 11, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P1 with the writ petition, it notified the sale of land measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas, in which the present petitioners had a share. Aggrieved by this advertisement, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5188 of 1999. It was posted for hearing before a Bench of this Court on April 22, 1999. It was disposed of with the following order :- "Present :- Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this writ petition may be ordered to be dismissed as not pressed. It was posted for hearing before a Bench of this Court on April 22, 1999. It was disposed of with the following order :- "Present :- Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this writ petition may be ordered to be dismissed as not pressed. So ordered." On May 19, 1999 the petitioners had filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the advertisement be quashed. In para 19 of the petition it has been stated that Civil Writ Petition No. 8335 of 1997, Civil Revision No. 1588 of 1999 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5188 of 1999 had been filed earlier by the petitioners. 6. The petitioners allege that the Corporation has made no attempt to recover the dues by sale of the property to the firm. Thus, it should not proceed against the guarantors. 7. Written statements have been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Detailed facts regarding previous litigation have been given. It has been specifically pointed out that the land was auctioned. A hotel has been constructed. It is now running. On merits it has been pointed out that the firm having defaulted, the property belonging to the borrower and the guarantors could be auctioned. The auction was validly held. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners are the blood relations of the partners. They had stood a guarantee for the repayment of loan which had been advanced to the firm in the year 1984. The property in dispute had been mortgaged by the petitioners. The Civil Court after consideration of the matter had directed the sale of the mortgaged property. The petitioners challenge had failed. When a specific notice for sale of the property had appeared in the newspaper vide advertisement dated January 11, 1999, the petitioners had approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 5188 of 1999, which was dismissed as not pressed. That having happened, the petitioners have no legitimate right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for a second time. The liability to pay having been established and the challenge to the advertisement having been dismissed as not pressed, the present petition is not maintainable. 10. Mr. Ravinder Chopra contends that the petitioners had no notice of the sale. 11. The contention is misconceived. The liability to pay having been established and the challenge to the advertisement having been dismissed as not pressed, the present petition is not maintainable. 10. Mr. Ravinder Chopra contends that the petitioners had no notice of the sale. 11. The contention is misconceived. A perusal of the advertisement shows that the firm had been given option to "join the sale proceedings on the date and time mentioned above....." They were also given option to "bring third parties." Still further, it is the admitted position that the wife of petitioner No. 1 and the sons of petitioner No. 2 are the only partners in the firm. Yet the petitioners want this Court believe that they had no notice. This too, despite the fact that an earlier challenge to the advertisement was not pressed. The contention raised by the counsel cannot be accepted. 12. Mr. Chopra submits that the petitioners can deposit the amount for which the land had been auctioned. This deposit can be made at any time. On the making of the deposit, the land should be restored to them. 13. The contention is misconceived. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 4, it has been specifically pointed out that after purchasing the land, a hotel has been constructed at the site. Photographs have been produced as Annexures R-4/8 to R-4/11. The hotel is said to have been inaugurated on September, 2000. A perusal of the photographs shows that a sizeable structure has been raised. The cost is bound to be considerable. The situation having changed, the request of the petitioners for restoration of the land is wholly misconceived. 14. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.