JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash the impugned order dated 15th January, 2010 rendered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279/2009 in O.A. No. 68/2005 namely M/s. C.P.G. Exports & Ors. v. Vijaya Bank & Anr. and Notice dated 20th January, 2010 published by the respondent no.4 Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, under Section 25(a) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred in short as 'Act 1993'). 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 availed loan of Rs. 2,88,840/- on 15th March, 1999 and Rs. 1,47,823/- on 11th June, 1999 from the respondent no. 1 Vijaya Bank. Petitioner no.3 furnished guarantee for the same. On account of there being non-payment of the loan by the petitioners, the respondent no. 1 Bank submitted an application for realisation of the ultimate balance of its dues from petitioner no.1, which is being represented by its proprietor i.e. petitioner no.2. The O.A. bearing no. 68/2005 was decided on 13th November, 2007 by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against the petitioners, who were duly represented by their counsel and one Mr. Ram Gopal Gupta, whereby it was decreed for Rs. 15,39,413.00 plus interest pendent lite upto recovery and costs. 3. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, which stood dismissed in default on 6th January, 2009. Thereafter, restoration application was moved on 22nd January, 2009. The restoration application was allowed at the cost of Rs. 25,000/-, to be adjusted towards loan in question. After hearing both the parties, the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi having taken a lenient view, directed the petitioners to deposit 50% of the decretal amount of Rs. 15,39,413/- minus the pendente lite and future interest and costs, within four weeks, failing which that Court shall be constrained to dismiss the appeal under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act. The petitioners impugned this judgment in the High Court by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was later withdrawn with the liberty to file review petition before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, found that the petitioners had not even partially complied with the orders, hence, dismissed the review petition, which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, found that the petitioners had not even partially complied with the orders, hence, dismissed the review petition, which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioner was a poor man and facing a financial crisis. He was not in condition to deposit the amount in question, hence, he should have been given some more time to pay the loan amount. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank made a scathing attack on the petitioners' conduct and contended that the petitioner no.2, who was the Proprietor of petitioner no.1 firm, himself consented before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as costs and further agreed to deposit 50% out of the decretal amount of Rs. 15,39,413/- excluding pendente lite interest and future interest and costs as a condition precedent for entertainment of appeal under Section 21 of the Act, 1993. Learned counsel further submitted that vide order dated 6th November, 2009, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi made it clear to the petitioners that the orders were to be complied with in stricto senso. Despite that, the petitioners did not adhere to the directions given by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi and failed to deposit the amount which was agreed to as per the order dated 6th November, 2009. Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and devoid of any force, which deserves to be dismissed out rightly. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned all the relevant orders rendered by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, it is found that the petitioners have utterly failed to make out any case in their favour. They have also failed to make out any special case in their favour so as to enable this Court to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and further no averment relating to the contravention of legal right or the fundamental rights is found to have been cast. Despite being given ample opportunity, the petitioners, on one or the other ground, are found to have succeeded in procrastinating the repayment of loan amount. Despite being given ample opportunity, the petitioners, on one or the other ground, are found to have succeeded in procrastinating the repayment of loan amount. Since, the petitioners have utterly failed to make out a case in their favour, the writ petition, being bereft of any substance, deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of above, the writ petitions fails and same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. 9. Since the writ petition has been adjudicated finally, no order is required to be passed on the application no. 24851 dated 17th May, 2011 filed under Section 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of interim order dated 24th February, 2010, hence, the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******