JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- A loan was advanced to respondent No.2 on 25.03.1988 of Rs. 97000/- for purchase of a Tractor. The loan was payable with interest @ 15% per annum with half yearly rests. In order to secure the loan, respondents No.3 and 4 stood guarantee and respondent No.1 mortgaged his immovable property with the petitioner bank by a registered mortgage deed. 2. There were defaults in repayment of the loan and as a consequence the petitioner bank filed a petition on 01.07.1996 under Section 8 of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) for recovery of Rs. 1,91,954/- which amount was inclusive of interest upto 31.03.1996. This petition was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1998. Operative part of the order reads as under:- “I have heard both the parties and also gone through the record of the case. It is very much clear that the respondent No.1 had taken loan for the purchase of tractor as explained in the application land in lieu thereof had mortgaged his land with the bank for the security of the amount. Respondents No.2 and 3 stood as guarantors taking responsibility for the repayment of the loan with interest, but the respondents have failed to discharge their obligations and a sum of Rs. 1,91,954/- including interest upto 31.03.1996 with future interest @ 15.5% is due from the respondents till the date of realization. I, therefore, order the respondents to repay the amount of Rs. 1,91,954/- jointly and severally failing which the amount is ordered to be recovered by the applicant bank by the sale of mortgaged property of respondent No.1.” 3. In order to absolve himself of the liability and to prevent the foreclosure of the mortgage, respondent No.2 paid the sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- on 11.03.1999 i.e. within about six months i.e. prior to filing of any further application by the petitioner to foreclose the mortgage and recover the dues by sale of the property. 4. Despite the aforesaid payment, the petitioner did not return the title documents. To secure the same, respondent No.2 filed a suit on 20.8.1999 for return of the title documents which was contested by the petitioner bank. 5. 4. Despite the aforesaid payment, the petitioner did not return the title documents. To secure the same, respondent No.2 filed a suit on 20.8.1999 for return of the title documents which was contested by the petitioner bank. 5. It was much later i.e. on 03.10.2000 that the petitioner bank filed an application for correction of the order dated 07.09.1998 seeking interest for the period beyond 31.03.1996 which was dismissed on 16.05.2002 noticing that there was no clerical error which could be rectified under Section 152 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 as the grant and non-grant of interest was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake. 6. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner bank has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 8. In our view, Sub Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 07.09.1998 quantified the debt at Rs. 1,91,954/- including interest upto 31.03.1996 with future interest @ 15.5% per annum due till the date of realization. However, while directing the debtor to repay, the payment of Rs. 1,91,954/- was envisaged as the amount to discharge the liability failing which the bank could proceed to foreclose the mortgage and sell the property and in such an eventuality, future interest beyond 31.03.1996 would also have been payable. However, respondent No.2 paid the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- to clear the dues on 11.03.1999. 9. The other aspect to be noticed is that the petitioner bank also never moved any clarification application for a considerable period of time despite the wordings of the order dated 07.09.1998. At least on 11.03.1999 they knew that as per the stand of respondent No.2 the amount was being paid of Rs. 1,92,000/- in full and final satisfaction of its claim and yet chose to remain silent till 03.10.2000 when the application for rectification was filed which was rightly rejected on the ground that non-grant of future interest cannot fall within the definition of clerical or arithmetical mistake. The order dated 07.09.1998 had thus become final and if at all the petitioner bank was aggrieved with that order, the occasion to challenge the same arose when that judgment was delivered and not two years later. The order dated 07.09.1998 had thus become final and if at all the petitioner bank was aggrieved with that order, the occasion to challenge the same arose when that judgment was delivered and not two years later. We may notice that there is even no prayer to challenge the order dated 07.09.1998 keeping in mind the constraints of time limitation and that is why the prayer is so structured as to seek quashing of order dated 16.5.2002 with a right to claim future interest. 10. We are thus of the view that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. The title documents of respondent No.2, if taken by the petitioner, alongwith discharge of mortgage/N.O.C., be issued within a maximum period of one month from today. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------------