JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant bank seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2000 allowing the writ petitioner, and directing that if the writ petitioner deposits a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 31.08.2000 then nothing would survive, and bank will not proceed against the writ petitioner any further. 2. The matter arises in the circumstances, that the writ petitioner had taken a loan way-back in the year 1988 in the sum of Rs. 66,000/-, and did not make the payments as agreed. According to the writ petitioner, bank moved the application under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, before the prescribed authority on 09.02.1994. In those proceedings, petitioner's tractor was attached, and was put to auction. Likewise, the petitioner also deposited some amount in cash on 01.04.1998. Since the proceedings continued for recovery of remaining amount, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, raising a grievance, that as per directions of Reserve Bank of India, rate of interest can be charged on agricultural loan at 12.4%, whereas in the present case, interest has been charged at 16.5%. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation Bank's case reported in, 1994(5) SCC 213 to contend that interest cannot be charged with six monthly rests. Inter-alia with this, it was prayed that the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority be quashed, and the respondents be directed not to attach the petitioner's agricultural land, and a direction was sought to charge the interest @ 12.5% per annum. The petitioner also produced the order-sheets of the prescribed authority. 3. The bank contested the writ petition, and submitted that despite service of show cause notice by the prescribed authority, the petitioner neither appeared before the prescribed authority, nor submitted any objections despite several notices, as such, the petition is not maintainable. Then reliance was placed on Noida Entrepreneur Association's case, citation of which was not given. Then reliance was placed on provisions of Section 21A of the Banking Regulations, 1949 to contend that the powers of the Court are fettered in the matter of reopening the interest claimed by the bank. Factual aspect, about recovery of Rs. 1,20,500/- was not disputed, but it was contended that as on 31.03.2000, a sum of Rs. 2,22,199/- was outstanding. Then reliance was placed on provisions of Section 21A of the Banking Regulations, 1949 to contend that the powers of the Court are fettered in the matter of reopening the interest claimed by the bank. Factual aspect, about recovery of Rs. 1,20,500/- was not disputed, but it was contended that as on 31.03.2000, a sum of Rs. 2,22,199/- was outstanding. Then Corporation Bank's case was sought to be distinguished on factual matrix. 4. It is, in this factual scenario, that the learned Single Judge without going into the matter, in a wholly superficial, and sleep-shot manner, has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, purportedly keeping in mind the purpose of Lok Adalat, and considered that in 1988, the loan of Rs. 66,000/- was taken, and by now, he has in all paid Rs. 1,60,000/-, and that it is unfortunate that in auction, tractor worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- was sold at Rs. 40,000/-, even without considering that the tractor was purchased in the year 1988 by taking loan, and was sold in 1999, obviously during this long span of time, the cost did depreciate. Then the learned Single Judge has proceeded to hold that he would not like to go into all this because in his opinion, interest of justice would be served by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. It passes our comprehension, as to what were the parameters of interest of justice under consideration with the learned Single Judge. The Rule of Damdupat no more holds good, and if the defaulter borrower does not repay the amount, obviously, liability of interest does run, and simply because it swells to an amount, which might be felt by the learned Single Judge to be excessive, it cannot be said that interest of justice lie that the slashing down the amount is violation of the provisions of Section 21A. 5. Thus, we do not find ourselves in the position to sustain the impugned order. 6. Coming to the merits of the writ, it would suffice to say, that as is clear from Annex.3, that despite repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear, nor did he submit any objection of whatever nature, and after allowing the proceedings to continue for more than 6 years, when the things came only to attachment of other immovable property, that the petitioner rushed to this Court. That apart, in view of the provisions of Section 21A as interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao reported in 1999 DNJ 41 and in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors. reported in, AIR 2001 SC 3095 in our view, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to any relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, before dismissing the writ petition, it is required to be considered that may be that the learned Single Judge's order has hereby been set aside, however, the fact remains that in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, and felt to have been relieved of the liability any further. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct that the respondent should sympathetically consider, as to whether the petitioner should be held liable for payment of interest on the amount, as was outstanding on the date of passing of the order of the learned Single Judge till the date. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid clarification and direction to the bank.Appeal Allowed. *******