JUDGMENT J.M. MALIK, CHAIRPERSON.-The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned D.R.T. dated 22nd April, 2008, wherein the application/ appeal moved by the appellants was dismissed. Adumbrated in brief the facts of this case are these. House No. 118/163, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur was initially acquired by Hakim Singh S/o of Gyan Singh, who was the father of late Sardar Guru Charan Singh, original appellant vide registered sale deed dated 23rd February, 1961, copy of which has been placed on record as Ext. No. A-29. Thereafter, a family settlement took place between Hakim Singh, Smt. Veerawali, Sardar Trilok Singh, Sardar Guru Charan Singh and Sardar Satnam Singh, which was duly registered on 21st February, 1968. A portion of the said house fell into the share of both the brothers namely Sardar Guru Charan Singh and Sardar Satnam Singh. Subsequently, another partition took place amongst the above said two brothers vide registered partition deed dated 11th September, 1975/2nd December, 1975, wherein they received. half share each of the house in question measuring 333.35 sq. yards each. It is averred that the said property belongs to H.D.F. Late Sardar Guru Charan Singh had three sons namely Sardar Charanjeet Singh, Daljeet Singh and Surinder Pal Singh, who are other coparceners of the above said half share. 2. It is, however, admitted that for financial assistance of Rs. 15 lacs towards cash credit was provided by the respondent bank to the appellants No. 1 through its proprietor in the month of January, 1999 and in order to secure the said financial assistance, Sardar Guru Charan Singh, since deceased, created equitable mortgage of the above said house and stood surety as guarantor and executed the requisite loaning documents in favour of the bank. It is alleged that both the appellants had affixed their signatures on some blank papers on the assurance that the loaning documents would be filled up later on and in order to assess the solvency of late Sardar Guru Charan Singh in respect of the above said house. 3. The respondent bank published the sale notices for sale of House No. 118/163, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur in Hindi Newspaper. The bank also issued notice under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (to be referred as 'the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act' now onwards). 3. The respondent bank published the sale notices for sale of House No. 118/163, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur in Hindi Newspaper. The bank also issued notice under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (to be referred as 'the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act' now onwards). It also moved application under sections 14 (1) and (2) of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 on 10th July, 2006 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The said application was allowed. The bank tried to dispossess the appellant by use of force. The said property is commercial as well as residential. Appellant No.2 Sardar Gurucharan Singh since deceased, was the karta of the Joint Hindu Family, Daljeet Singh proprietor of respondent No.1 S/o late Sardar Gurucharan Singh is one of the coparceners of Hindu Joint Family. 4. Aggrieved by that, an appeal/application under section 17 (10 of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act was filed before the D.R.T., Allahabad. The respondents have contested the present appeal. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The principal argument advanced by the Counsel for the appellants was that no valid equitable mortgage was ever created. The mortgage deed in question cannot be said to be a secured asset. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that certain infirmities were admitted by the bank itself, as it is evident from the Ext. No. A-24 letter of Assistant General Manager Mr. B.D. Mishra dated 23rd February, 2002. Its relevant portion runs as follows: "Further, during the course of your visit to this office on 31st January, 2000, we had brought to your notice certain infirmities in the creation of equitable mortgage charge and advised you to submit necessary papers, the list of which has been given to you. Accordingly, you had given a letter dated 31st January, 2000 to us assuring us that these papers/certified copies would be handed over to the branch within a month, as these are to be obtained from Court. Please keep up your promise. Similarly, you have also been advised to close down the current account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Gumti No.5, Kanpur in the name of Chhabra Electrical Trader and produce a certificate in this regard, which you had agreed to do so within two or three days. Please keep up your promise. Similarly, you have also been advised to close down the current account maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Gumti No.5, Kanpur in the name of Chhabra Electrical Trader and produce a certificate in this regard, which you had agreed to do so within two or three days. We regret to note that we have been informed by the Branch Manager, Swaroop Nagar branch that you are still maintaining the said account with State Bank of Patiala. In this connection, we once again advise you to close down the said C.D. account immediately and submit the closure certificate to the branch within 2/3 days. In case you find any operational difficulties, you can open a separate C.D. account with our Swaroop Nagar branch and operate the account. Please extend you fullest co-operation to regularize the account and to remove the infirmities observed in the creation of equitable mortgage." 6. For the following reasons, the submission made by the Counsel for the appellant is lame of strength. Abare look on the appeal filed before the D.R.T. itself clearly goes to show that the other alleged coparceners were not arrayed either as appellants or proforma respondents. The factum of partition, if any was in the exclusive knowledge of the appellants or their coparceners. There is no inkling on the record that they disclosed the above said facts before the bank while obtaining the loan in question. This is an undisputed fact that Sardar Guru Charan Singh, appellant No. 2 executed letter of guarantee dated 18th January, 1999, another letter of guarantee dated 24th March, 2000, equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for securing the loan dated 6th January, 1999, and letter of indent dated 18th January, 1999, copies of which were produced by the bank in Annexure Nos. C.A. -1 to C.A.-5 respectively. 7. Again, appellants cannot raise these questions as the law of estoppel applies in this case on two different counts. Firstly, they cannot raise this plea at this late stage. Nobody can be allowed to pull the wire in the eyes of authorities. Secondly, the appellants have admitted the above said liability time and again. The negotiations for compromise were going on time and again. However, it is a sad story that the compromise could not be arrived at between the parties, despite the efforts made by this Court as well. Secondly, the appellants have admitted the above said liability time and again. The negotiations for compromise were going on time and again. However, it is a sad story that the compromise could not be arrived at between the parties, despite the efforts made by this Court as well. Then the argument was finally heard on 4th August, 2008. On that day, the learned Counsel for the appellant made an offer that the appellants would deposit Rs. 4,82,000/along with up to date interest in full and final settlement between the parties, within a period of six months in equated instalments from that day itself. Counsel for the respondent bank wanted time to seek approval from the higher authorities of the bank. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 6th August, 2008. On 6th August, 2008 the Chief Manager though a letter explained that the above said offer given on 30th March, 2007 had become time barred and was not acceptable to the bank. He, however, put forward a new offer that the bank could settle the matter and accept Rs. 9,49,025/- as full and final payment payable 50% immediately and balance in three months along with simple interest @ 13.25%. The fresh offer found no favour with appellants and hence the appeal is being decided finally. Consequently, the' submission made by the Counsel for the appellant in this context has to be left out of consideration. 8. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the appellants were made to sign the blank documents. 9. This argument was urged for its outright rejection. Even if it is assumed that the appellants signed the blank papers, they did it on their own peril. They cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same at this stage. It is also clear that the appellants signed the papers in question with open eyes. No evidence to the contrary saw the light of the day. This is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that the documents will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well known axiom of law that men may tell lies but the documents cannot. The parties also are required to approach the Court with clean hands. 10. It was also argued that notice under section 13 (2) of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act was served on the appellant No. 1 or upon the deceased appellant No.2. The parties also are required to approach the Court with clean hands. 10. It was also argued that notice under section 13 (2) of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act was served on the appellant No. 1 or upon the deceased appellant No.2. Counsel for the appellants opined that fresh notices should have been issued to the LRs. 11. This argument carries no conviction. The L.Rs. stepped into the shoes of their deceased predecessor. This is not the requirement of the law that the proceedings must start from scratch. The proceedings are not to restart but to continue further, where those were left by their deceased predecessor. Counsel for the appellant was asked to show any law, which may go to embolden his contention but he displayed his inability to do so. 12. It was finally argued that compromise negotiations were going on between the parties. Appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 12 lacs. Even the respondent bank is not sure as how much money is due to the appellants as is apparent in their application under sections 14 (1) and (2) of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur dated 10th July, 2006. It was explained that the bank wants to take undue advantage because Daljeet Singh appellant faced financial constraints during the law few years, which also included the serious ailment of his father which ultimately resulted in his death. 13. The record reveals that the appellants were given time to settle the matter, but the needful could not be done. This must be borne in mind that the time is the essence of such like agreements. It is difficult to fathom as to why the appellants played for time. The borrowers must act diligently. They should be aware of the fact that such like delaying tactics may boomerang. The fact that the appellants waddled out of their commitments can be glossed over from the Court record. At the fag end of this appeal on 4th August, 2008, the appellants made an offer that he would deposit Rs. 4.8 lacs along with up to date interest within a period of six months in equated monthly instalments from 4th August, 2008. As already discussed above, the appellants rejected his offer because that offer pertained to 30th March, 2007, time being essence of the agreement. Bank appears to have validly rejected the said offer. 4.8 lacs along with up to date interest within a period of six months in equated monthly instalments from 4th August, 2008. As already discussed above, the appellants rejected his offer because that offer pertained to 30th March, 2007, time being essence of the agreement. Bank appears to have validly rejected the said offer. As per the applications moved under sections 14 (1) and (2) of the S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002, a sum of Rs. 13,83,372/- was outstanding in account of the appellants on 10th July, 2006. The new offer appears to be quite reasonable. Under the above detailed circumstances, the bank itself gave benefit of more than Rs. 6/7 lacs to the appellants. The Court cannot compel or force the parties to compound the case. It depends upon the sweet-will of the parties. 14, In the interests of justice and as per last offer made by the bank, I partly accept the appeal and direct the appellants to deposit 50% of the amount of Rs. 9,49,025/- within one month from the date of this order and rest of the amount be deposited thereafter, after the expiry of one month, within three months along with simple interest @ 13.25% in equated instalments. In default of any of the instalments, the appeal shall stand dismissed in its totality. 15, The copies of order be supplied to the parties as per law. The copy be also dispatched to the D.R.T. concerned along with its records. The appeal stands disposed off. File be consigned to the records. Appeal Disposed Off.