JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case. 2. The learned Counsel Mr Manish Shishodia appearing for the appellant-defendant-judgment-debtor submits that the appellant defendant Avtar Singh is ready and willing to square up the entire loan account of the respondent-plaintiff-Bank of India. The learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Nahar appearing for the respondent-plaintiff-Bank of India has produced before this Court a copy of the letter of Bank of India dated 15.11.2014 that (he total outstanding interest for 192 months on the principal amount of Rs. 2,01,516/- due against the appellant-defendant Avtar Singh is Rs. 1,93,455/-. Thus the total outstanding as on date is Rs. 3,94,971/-[ Rs. 2,01,516/- (Principal Amount) + Rs. 1,93,455/- (Interest Amount)] due against the appellant-defendant Avtar Singh. The learned Counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the appellant defendant submits that a sum of Rs. 2,02,500/- has been deposited by the appellant-defendant before the Executing Court below. The learned Counsel further submits that subject to adjustment of this sum of Rs. 2,02,500/-, the appellant defendant-judgment debtor is ready and willing to deposit the remaining outstanding due and wants to square up his loan account with the respondent-plaintiff-decree-holder-Bank of India within a period of one month from today. The learned Counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia submits that subject to this deposit and clearance of the outstanding of therespondent-plaintiff-decree-holder-Bank of India, he has instruction not to press the Execution First Appeal against the execution of the decree on merits. 3. In response to the submissions made herein above by the learned Counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the appellant-defendant-judgment debtor, the learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Nahar appearing for the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder does not have any objection, if the entire outstanding of the Bank is cleared off. 4. However, the learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Bhadu appearing for the respondent-defendant No. 4-Ram Singh, the applicant, who was impleaded in the present Execution First Appeal No. 3/2013 by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.1.2014 submits that he is the auction purchaser of the suit property in question and has deposited a sum of Rs. 4. However, the learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Bhadu appearing for the respondent-defendant No. 4-Ram Singh, the applicant, who was impleaded in the present Execution First Appeal No. 3/2013 by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.1.2014 submits that he is the auction purchaser of the suit property in question and has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- and this sum of money is lying deposited with the Executing Court below ever since 25.4.2009 but he has not been given the possession of the land in question nor any conveyance deed has been executed by the respondent-defendant-decree-holder-Bank of India in his favour and, therefore, his rights and interests deserves to be protected. In support of this contention the learned Counsel Mr. V.K. Bhadu appearing for the applicant Respondent No. 4-Ram Singh submits that the applicant has made an application (Annexure A/3) before the Executing Court below of learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar on 3.4.2013 submitting, inter alia, that in the alternative, the decree-holder-Bank of India may be directed to refund back the amount of Rs. 8,10,000/- to the applicant Ram Singh S/o Kartar Singh. 5. The learned Counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the appellant-defendant-judgment debtor submitted that since after the First Appeal (No. 101/2000) was restored by this Court on 15.3.2007, the interim order given in his favour by this Court on 23.5.2000 staying execution of the impugned decree thus stood revived, therefore, the suit properly which was put to auction stood subject to decision of this Appeal, with revival of the First Appeal No. 101/2000-Avtar Singh v. Bank of India & Ors. , cannot now be upheld as the said auction was never made final. 6. In view of the submissions made herein above by the learned Counsels for the parties, the present First Appeal No. 101/2000-Avtar Singh v. Bank of India & Ors. , as well as the Execution First Appeal No. 3/2013- Avtar Singh v. Bank of India & Ors. , are dismissed as not pressed subject to the compliance, as aforesaid, of the undertaking given by the appellant defendant judgment debtor Avtar Singh that he shall deposit the entire outstanding due which is in the sum of Rs. 3,94,971/- after adjustment of the already deposited amount of Rs. 2,02,500/-with the Executing Court below and, therefore, the remaining outstanding amount Rs. 3,94,971/- after adjustment of the already deposited amount of Rs. 2,02,500/-with the Executing Court below and, therefore, the remaining outstanding amount Rs. 1,92,471 /- will be deposited by him with the Executing Court within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted for the purpose to the appellant defendant-judgment debtor. Upon deposit by the appellant-defendant-judgment debtor, the learned Executing Court is directed to disburse the total amount of Rs. 3,94,971/- to the respondent-plaintiff-decree holder Bank of India immediately. 7. It is needless to observe that the amount of Rs. 8,10,000/- deposited by the applicant-respondent No. 4-Ram Singh, who was the auction purchaser of the land in question, will be refunded back to the applicant Ram Singh by the Executing Court below. If it was kept in some interest bearing deposit bank then with such interest also, otherwise, without any interest. 8. In view of the above, the learned Executing Court is directed to dispose of the execution proceedings pending in Execution Case No. 32/2003 in terms of the aforesaid order. 9. With the observations and directions aforesaid, these two Appeals filed by the appellant-defendant-judgment debtor Avtar Singh are dismissed as not pressed on merits. No costs A Copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court/Executing Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar concerned for with.Appeals dismissed. *******