JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. When this matter was argued and taken up for the first time on 28.1.2009 a Bench of this Court passed the order of restraint against the respondent UCO Bank in a proceeding which was initiated under SARFAESI Act. A brief background to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has also been noted in the said order. From a reading of the said order it is evident that the Court wanted to give an opportunity to petitioner to come out of imminent action contemplated against him, for default in payment of loan amount when the account became NPA. Since the industry was at its nascent stage a kind of protection was extended against enforcement of payment of loan amount. Petitioner was given some breathing space and time to work out ways and means. 3. Taking queue from the said order dated 28.1.2009 the Court has been pleased to extend the protection as well as given directions to the parties to the dispute from time to time. But as the things stand today after passage of more than a year not much difference has been made to the basic dispute which this Court is confronted with. With more earnest a prayer on behalf of the petitioner is made for extending the order of stay or protection at least by six months. 4. Some other developments have taken place which now must be recorded because the intervenor has appeared and filed I.A. No. 4627 of 2009 which stood allowed on 11.11.2009. The intervenor is said to be an Assets Reconstruction Company which is an authority created under SARFAESI Act and they have paid up the outstanding loan and dues of the petitioner to the lending Bank which is the UCO Bank. There is an interlocutory application filed on their behalf for vacating the order of stay. The said I.A. is 4628 of 2009. Their stand is that they are entitled to take possession of the property in question because they have paid up the Bank of the outstanding dues of the petitioner and the order of restraint is coming in the way of restoration of the property and its take over. The money was deposited with the UCO Bank way back and the assignment agreement executed as far as back on 31.12.2008. The money was deposited with the UCO Bank way back and the assignment agreement executed as far as back on 31.12.2008. All these aspect were not brought to the notice of the Court when initial order of stay was passed. 5. UCO Bank had also filed an application for modification of the order as well as clarification. The said modification application had earlier been allowed, reflection of which is there in the order dated 14.12.2009. Their stand is that the proceeding under SARFAESI Act came to be initiated when the default of the kind was committed by the petitioner and the account became irregular and had to be declared NPA. The proceeding is totally in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act and law. The anxiety shown by the petitioner to settle the outstanding Ioan and dues and getting it restructured is more directed towards the Court and not towards the Bank. If the petitioner had fair commitment to meet the obligation under law the Bank would have been more willing to accommodate the petitioner. But many developments have taken place thereafter and their hands are tied too. 6. Keeping in mind the above aspect of dispute and the development which had taken place prior to passing of the stay order on 28.1.2009, the facts stated by the intervenor, the Court has to now seriously think over the conduct of the petitioner. Whether any further protection ought to be given to the petitioner and whether enforcement of law against him ought to be kept in abeyance is the question that is required to be answered. 7. Some communications with the so-called Executive Director of the Bank has also been filed with I.A. 1858 of 2010 and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been given some kind of assurance. 8. If that be so, then the petitioner must revert to the Bank and set the house in order because any further indulgence will now have come from the Bank with due cooperation of the intervenor who is the Assets Reconstruction Company and they too have acquired right over the property in question prior to passing of stay order. 9. The Court in the abovenoted circumstance is not inclined to grant any relief or indulgence to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed and the order of stay is hereby vacated. 10. 9. The Court in the abovenoted circumstance is not inclined to grant any relief or indulgence to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed and the order of stay is hereby vacated. 10. The petitioner is not remediless as forum is available under the law or SARFAESI Act. Since no case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out the petitioner is relegated to the appropriate forum.