Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner (one of the borrowers) has challenged the conditional interim order of stay passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in I.A.No.1071 of 2007 in (SARFAESI) No.663 of 2007, which reads as follows: "1. Heard both sides. 2. Interim stay on condition of deposit of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) with the respondent bank in two instalments each at Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only), first on or before 212. 2007 and the second one on or before 21. 2008. On such deposit, the respondent bank is directed to keep the said amount in interest earning no-lien account. 3. Call on 312. 2007." 2. It appears that the respondents-Dena Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued notice on 18. 2002 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act), on the borrower(s), demanding a sum of Rs.13,06,38,445/-. Having failed to deposit the total amount, the Bank took steps under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act; the petitioner challenged the same in SARFAESI Appeal No.117 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, but having not been granted with an order of interim stay, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in IN (SARFAESI) No.663 of 2007, wherein, the DRAT passed the aforesaid conditional order of interim stay on 211. 2007. 3. According to the petitioner, his sons have also independently challenged the action taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act in a separate appeal (application) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the DRT. In their case also, no interim order having been granted, they also moved the DRAT, wherein, they have preferred I.A.No.1060 of 2007 for interim relief. The DRAT, vide order dated 110. 2007 in I.A.No.1060 of 2007, directed the sons (of the petitioner) to deposit a sum of Rs.9 crores and on such a direction, the sons have deposited Rs.9 crores with the Bank in three spells, i.e. Rs.4,50,00,000/- on 111. 2007, Rs.2,50,00,000/- on 112. 2007 and Rs.2,00,00,000/- on 11. 2008. 4. The DRAT, vide order dated 110. 2007 in I.A.No.1060 of 2007, directed the sons (of the petitioner) to deposit a sum of Rs.9 crores and on such a direction, the sons have deposited Rs.9 crores with the Bank in three spells, i.e. Rs.4,50,00,000/- on 111. 2007, Rs.2,50,00,000/- on 112. 2007 and Rs.2,00,00,000/- on 11. 2008. 4. It was contended by the petitioner that for the very same claim, a sum of Rs.9 crores having been already deposited by his sons against the total claim of Rs.13,06,38,445/-in analogous appeal, no further amount could be directed to be deposited by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DRAT cannot ask to deposit 50% of the amount twice. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank accepted that in the analogous case of the sons (of the petitioner), the DRAT directed to deposit the amount, which has also been deposited. 6. In the present case, as we find that for the very same claim, two sets of appeals (applications) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act having been preferred, pursuant to the order passed in the earlier appeal, one of the borrowers, i.e. sons (of the petitioner) were directed and deposited 50% of the amount, we are of the view that the DRAT cannot direct the subsequent appellant (the petitioner in this CRP) to deposit again 50% of the amount as against the very same claim made by the secured creditor-Bank (respondents herein). 7. We accordingly set aside the part of the impugned order of the DRAT dated 211. 2007 passed in I.A.No.1071 of 2007 in IN (SARFAESI) No.663 of 2007, whereby a condition was imposed to deposit a sum of Rs.8 crores. We direct that the interim order of stay as was passed by the DRAT by the said order dated 211. 2007, shall continue until the final disposal of the case. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extend indicated above. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.