ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against notice of auction dated 6.12.2008, Annexure P-6, to sell the mortgaged property on account of non-payment of dues by the appellant. 2. The appellant took loan against mortgage of property from the Punjab Financial Corporation. On default, possession of the property was taken over by the Corporation. The appellant filed C.W.P. No.17669 of 2007 M/s Britainia Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab Financial Corporation which was disposed of on 3.10.2008, wherein while rejecting the prayer for accepting the principal amount with simple interest, direction was issued that the petitioner be given opportunity to pay the amount due by selling the property in consultation with the Corporation. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount, as per above order, proceedings against the appellant for auctioning the property were initiated, which were again challenged by filing C.W.P. No.21247 of 2008 M/s Britainia Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab Financial Corporation. Learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner claimed the same relief which had been earlier declined. However, the petitioner was allowed to make payment as fixed vide order dated 23.12.2008, on which auction will stand withdrawn. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once there was One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) floated by the Corporation, the appellant may be given permission to pay the amount as per the said scheme, even belatedly, as held by this Court in Sat Kartar Ice and General Mills v. Punjab Financial Corporation 2008(1) ISJ (Banking) 248. 5. We are unable to accept the submission made. Same contention had been raised in the earlier writ petition, which was dismissed on 3.10.2008. The question raised is, thus, res judicata. There is no inflexible rule that benefit once introduced must be given irrespective of default of the borrower. It is not disputed that the appellant did not make the payment even as per the OTS Scheme within the time stipulated. 6. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ----------------------