Judgment :- V. Dhanapalan, J. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order dated 15.5.2010; to quash the same and to direct the respondent to extend the time for depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs by a period of eight weeks. 3. Heard Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. 4. The order under challenge has been passed by the respondent herein on 15.5.2010 stating that, as the petitioner has failed to pay the balance amount of sale proceeds till date in terms of the auction sale, the bid amount of Rs.77 lakhs remitted by the petitioner so far is forfeited and the property in question is brought for re-sale. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was awaiting payment from SIPCOT as compensation for the lands acquired by the SIPCOT and with great difficulty, the petitioner managed to pay a sum of Rs.41.75 lakhs on different dates and totally a sum of Rs.74.75 lakhs has been paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, a request was made to the respondent to extend the time and the respondent, without considering the petitioners request, has passed the impugned order stating that whatever amount paid by the petitioner has to be forfeited in the event of the petitioners failure to pay the balance amount of sale proceeds. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank, on instruction, submitted that on two occasions, the request of the petitioner was considered and time was granted. Even after that, the balance amount of sale proceeds has not been paid by the petitioner and therefore, there is no option for the respondent-bank to bring the property for re-sale. 7. At the end of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made a plea that the petitioner, with great difficulty, paid a sum of Rs.81 lakhs and he is making all arrangements to pay the balance amount of sale proceeds. Therefore, if the petitioner is given two weeks time finally for paying the balance amount, he will certainly abide by the time granted by this Court and make the payment without further request from the respondent. Therefore, if the petitioner is given two weeks time finally for paying the balance amount, he will certainly abide by the time granted by this Court and make the payment without further request from the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank opposed for granting time to the petitioner stating that, on earlier occasions, the petitioner was granted time. 8. Having regard to the fact that considerable payment has been made by the petitioner and for paying the balance sale proceeds, only two weeks time is requested by the petitioner, we are not inclined to traverse on the merits and demerits of the case at this stage. Since the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner found it very difficult to mobilise the funds, as a last chance, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner for making the balance sale proceeds together with interest. 9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make the balance amount of sale proceeds within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with admissible bank interest. In the event of any failure on the part of the petitioner in paying the balance sale proceeds within the time stipulated by this Court, it is open to the respondent-bank to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.