JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3167/2007 whereby direction has been issued to the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 75.75 lakhs deposited by the respondent in pursuance of auction notice dated 26.01.2007 alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of receipt of deposit till its actual payment. 2. The sale of property is the subject matter of dispute. The appellant Bank issued a public auction notice in daily newspaper i.e. Dainik Bhaskar under the Securitization Act, 2002 by inviting prospective buyers. The bid was fixed on 28.02.2007. Respondent company participated in the bid and proved to be a successful bidder. It, in terms and conditions of the bid, deposited 25% of the bid amount that comes to Rs. 75.75 lakhs within 24 hours, though, the total sale consideration was of Rs. 3.03 crores. 3. Possession of the property could not be delivered as the property was in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a suit was pending with regard to the property but there was no restraint order. He has submitted that the suit was dismissed on 27.02.2007 whereas the auction took place on 28.02.2007. Against the dismissal of the suit, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 213/2007 has been filed and the Court has granted restraint order directing the parties to maintain status quo in part vide order dated 07.05.2007. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the property even after auction is in dispute. The Bank is not in a position to hand over the possession. The respondent under such circumstances filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Bank to hand over the possession of the property having been put to auction, after taking the full bid amount or in the alternate may be directed to refund 25% of the bid amount alongwith interest. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Bank is not in position to hand over the possession of the property in dispute. The Bank, at the time of putting property to auction for inviting prospective buyers, has concealed this fact that subject matter of the auction is in litigation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Bank is not in position to hand over the possession of the property in dispute. The Bank, at the time of putting property to auction for inviting prospective buyers, has concealed this fact that subject matter of the auction is in litigation. The learned Single Judge has rightly directed to the respondent therein to return the money back which is 25% of the bid amount as the Bank is not in position to hand over possession. 6. Learned counsel could not convince us to take a different view to that what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. There appears to be no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.D.B. Special Appeal Dismissed. *******