JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.: - CM No.4924 of 2011 This is an application for condonation of delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 320 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.1838 of 2011 1. This is an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition on the short ground of delay and laches. 2. The brief facts are that the writ petitioner-appellant (for short “the appellant”) was charged with embezzlement of funds of his employer cooperative society of which he was the Secretary during the relevant period. The loss caused became subject matter of adjudication in arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) against the appellants and an award was pronounced on 14.02.1995 (P-2) against the appellant for recovery of money. On issuing demand notice under Rule 72 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 on 29.05.1995 for recovery, the appellant remained in default of payment of demand created under the arbitration award which led to issuance of auction notice on 12.06.1995 for attachment and sale of land of the appellant pledged to the Bank loan to satisfy the award. The auction was conducted on 29.6.1995. The sale certificate was issued on 29.06.1995. The appellant challenged the sale certificate under Section 69 read with Section 3(4) of the Act. The Joint Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab dismissed the revision vide order dated 08.10.1996. On dismissal of the revision, sale certificate was issued by the Recovery Officer on 23.01.1998. The appellant approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction in 2009 after a little over 13 years. The appellant died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives were brought on record on 10.05.2010 by this Court as the cause of action survived. 3. The prayer in the writ petition duly supported by factual and legal submissions made in the body of the petition was that the 6th respondent; The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar being the ostensible auction purchaser did not participate in the auction nor gave any bid. 3. The prayer in the writ petition duly supported by factual and legal submissions made in the body of the petition was that the 6th respondent; The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar being the ostensible auction purchaser did not participate in the auction nor gave any bid. At the fall of the hammer, the bid was given by the officers at the auction proceedings in favour of the Bank or what appears to have been done by proxy. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that only 25% of the bid amount was deposited on behalf of the 6th respondent but the remaining 75% amount has not been deposited till date with the result that the possession of the land continued to be with the appellant and after his death with the legal heirs and representatives. 4. In the revision petition and in the writ petition, the case set up was that no legal auction had taken place and thereafter the late appellant’s legal representatives and successors-in-interest were prepared to deposit the amount under the award to save their agricultural land. In none of the written statements filed by the respondents, has this fact been disputed that 75% of the bid amount was not deposited by the Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar – respondent. Therefore, no title could pass to the Bank. This basic issued raised by the appellant has not been noticed or dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 since the writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. The review application No.323 of 2010 against the order dated 31.08.2010 has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.05.2011 holding that no ground for review is made out. 5. It requires notice that the learned Single Judge directed the appellants’ to deposit a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs vide order dated 25.09.2009 to show bona fides. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. 5. It requires notice that the learned Single Judge directed the appellants’ to deposit a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs vide order dated 25.09.2009 to show bona fides. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. H.N.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that there is an error in the judgment in appeal inasmuch as since the revenue record reflects that the appellants are in continuing possession of the land; subject matter of the auction proceedings, the limitation would start from the date when the respondent-Bank takes possession of the land which event has not happened since there has been failure to deposit 75% of the bid amount by the Bank within 15 days from the date of auction in terms of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rule 1963 and, therefore, no right, title or interest in the land has passed to the Bank. Besides, the interest of the Bank is limited to recovery of its amount and if the appellants are ready and willing to deposit the loan amount of which Rs.8.00 lacs already stands deposited on the interim direction of this Court then it would present no difficulty or cause prejudice to anyone if the balance amount is accepted from the hands of the appellants to save their land from being parted with, which for agriculturists is the only source of income and livelihood. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. In absence of effective rebuttal to non-payment by the auction purchaser of 75% of the balance amount of the bid within 15 days from the date of auction, no legal or vested right stands transmitted to the Ropar Central Cooperative Bank, Ropar – 6th respondent and the auction proceedings would remain inchoate till date and since the appellants have expressed their unequivocal willingness to pay the Bank its outstanding dues under the award we see no reason why the appellants should not in equity be called upon to make good the amount in discharge of the pious debt by the children of the deceased-writ petitioner. We feel justice would be served if this path is followed to which the respondents have no legally valid answer. 9. We feel justice would be served if this path is followed to which the respondents have no legally valid answer. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the learned Single Judge fell in error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches alone since possession remained with the appellants that would make the material difference and tilt the balance in favour of the appellants. 10. Consequently, we would allow the writ petition; set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2010 and the review order dated 16.05.2011 and direct the 6th respondent – Bank to disclose the total outstanding amount to the appellants within three weeks on receipt of certified copy of this order and the appellants shall deposit the outstanding amount communicated to them within three months thereafter upon which the immovable property of the appellants would stand discharged and consequently, the orders impugned in the writ petition would stand set aside without further orders of this Court.