ORDER B.S. Patil , J.—In these writ petitioners, petitioner is challenging the auction notice dated 8.9.2011 published in the English daily newspaper 'Deccan Herald' on 9.9.2011 fixing the date of auction on 29.9.2011. 2. Petitioner - Hospital is the borrower. On its default in discharging the loan due to the 1st respondent Bank proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated. As a sequel to the same, the property was brought for sale by publishing the auction notice on 14.6.2011 in the newspaper and bringing the property for sale on 18.7.2011. Aggrieved by the said auction notice, the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore in S.A. No. 346/2011. The Tribunal after hearing the petitioner granted an interim order on 13.7.2011 directing the 1st respondent - Bank to defer proceedings subject to the petitioner herein paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 18.7.2011 and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on or before 18.8.2011. Petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.7.2011 with the respondent - Bank. Another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- could not be deposited by the petitioner on or before 18.8.2011 as directed by the Tribunal. 3. Pleading certain difficulty, petitioner has made an application before the Tribunal seeking modification of the interim order passed on 13.7.2011 and requesting for extending time to deposit the sum of Rs.2,00,00/-. Respondent -Bank has taken time to file objections to the said application. However, in the meantime, petitioner has taken steps to deposit another sum of Rs.75,000/- on 8.9.2011 and the remaining sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 23.9.2011. But the respondent Bank has issued the impugned auction notice bringing the property for sale as the Tribunal in its interim order had made it clear that if the amount as directed was not paid, the Bank was at liberty to proceed in the matter. It is in this background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record. The appropriate course for the parties was to get the matter listed before the Tribunal with a request to pass orders on the application filed for extension of time. 5. However, pleading constraint of time and also the imperative urgency in the matter in view of the auction notice issued fixing the date for public auction, petitioner has rushed to this Court. 5. However, pleading constraint of time and also the imperative urgency in the matter in view of the auction notice issued fixing the date for public auction, petitioner has rushed to this Court. It is seen that the petitioner has already deposited another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- though belatedly. In that view of the matter, keeping in mind, the ends of justice and the difficulties pleaded by the petitioner. I am of the view that the respondent Bank has to defer these proceedings and await further orders from the Tribunal on the merits of the application or any further order to be passed in the matter. 6. However, the Bank shall not be saddled with financial liability to bear the expenses of bringing the property for sale by carrying out the advertisement in the daily newspaper. This has happened because of the omission on the part of the petitioner. Though the said omission was on account of some constraints faced by the petitioner. In this view of the matter apart from the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- i. e. already deposited, petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the costs of publication of the auction notice within a further period of six weeks from today. 7. Both the parties are at liberty to move the Tribunal requesting it to consider the matter on merit. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.