Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Manik Vedsen for the petitioner, Mr. Y.V. Giri for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for respondent no. 4 (Uttam Kumar). The petitioner seeks restoration of possession of the property known as Vaishali Timber Works, Munnachak, Kankarbagh, to the partnership firm. 2. According to the writ petition, Vaishali Timber Works owned the property in question engaged in the business of sale and purchase of timber in the township of Patna. It had taken a loan from the respondent Corporation, fell in arrears leading to various action on the part of the Corporation for realisation of the dues. The Corporation had directed it to be sold in favour of respondent no. 4 (Uttam Kumar) who also failed to pay the debts, as a result of which the sale in favour of respondent no. 4 was cancelled by order dated 30.5.2002 (Annexure 2) and the cash component including earnest money per-tajning to sale to be paid by the purchaser (Uttam Kumar) was forfeited. This was followed by the order dated 30.5.2002 (Annexure 4), whereby the petitioner was allowed to retain the assets on payment of the entire balance outstanding of the Corporation in one stroke within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the order. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 30.5.2002, and wrote his letter of the same date, to the Corporation to apprise him of the entire outstanding dues. The Corporation replied by its letter no. 222, dated 1.6.2002 (Annexure 14), whereby he was informed that the outstanding balance was Rs.8,93,068.70. The petitioner challenged this calculation by submitting his letter dated 10.6.2002 (Annexure A) on various counts, particularly non-adjustment of the said deposit of Rs.80,000/-, and application of higher rate of interest, which has remained unanswered. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 (Uttam Kumar) had filed CWJC No. 7198 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 6.8.2002 (Annexure A/1), whereby it was directed on compassionate ground that if Uttam Kumar deposits the whole of the balance amount within a period of six weeks from the date of furnishing of the accounts, then the property shall be conveyed in his favour (respondent no. 4 herein). 3. The petitioner complains before this Court that respondent no. 4 herein). 3. The petitioner complains before this Court that respondent no. 4 did not implead the present petitioner as party respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 2002 and obtained the order behind his back in collusion with the Corporation. This led to the registered document in favour of respondent no. 4 and three others conveying the property in question. The writ petition has, therefore, been preferred for a direction to set aside the registered document and reconvey the property to the petitioner. 4. The two sets of the respondents have submitted their separate counter affidavits and have supported the impugned action. 5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the Corporations letter dated 30.5.2002 (Annexure-4) that it had decided to hand over the assets to the original promoters (the petitioners) after payment of the entire balance outstanding in one stroke within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of issue of the letter. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 30.5.2002 itself, and wrote his letter of the same date to the Corporation to apprise him of the outstanding balance. He was informed of the dues by letter dated 1.6.2002 (Annexure-14) that it was Rs.8,93,068.70 P. as on 31.5.2002. The petitioner contested the same, intet alia, by challenging the rate of interest applied and also that the sum of Rs. 8000/- had not been adjusted. On the heels of it came the order dated 6.8.2002 (Annexurs-A/1), in C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 2002, preferred by respondent no. 4 herein, permitting hirn to retain the assets on compassionate ground if he deposited the entire outstanding balance within a period of six weeks which he did leading to the registered document of conveyance in his favour. It is true to state that the order in C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 2002 was passed behind the back of the present petitioner, but then he had forfeited his right to retain the assets for non-compliance of the terms of the letter dated 30.5.2002 (Annexure-4). It is another matter whether or not he was right in contesting the rate of interest which I do not wish to examine in view of the nature of the order that I am going to pass. It is another matter whether or not he was right in contesting the rate of interest which I do not wish to examine in view of the nature of the order that I am going to pass. The position may have stood on a different footing, had the petitioner deposited a substantial amount within the time allowed by the Corporation. He was surely right in contesting as to why the sum of Rs, 80,000/- deposited on 30.5.2002 had not been adjusted. As stated hereinabove, the Corporation has realised its dues followed by the registered deed of conveyance in favour of respondent no. 4. It would, therefore, not be in the interest of justice to interfere in the matter. Settled matters may not now be unsettled. 6. The Corporation shall, however, refund the said sum of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner deposited by him on 30.5.2002, if not already refunded, with interest at the same rate at which the dues were calculated in the said letter dated 1.6.2002 (Annexure-14), within a period of eight weeks. The interest shall be paid from 1.6.2002 till the date of payment. Respondent No. 4 shall be liable to pay the same with interest to the Corporation within the period stipulated by the Corporation. Respondent No. 4 must be saddled within this liability, inter alia, for obtaining the order in C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 2002 behind the back of the petitioner who is now faced with the Fait Accompli. 7. This writ petition is dismissed with the said observations.