JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, J. Appellants are the writ petitioners. Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were initiated against the appellants. Appellants filed the writ petition seeking the following prayers: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recover its outstanding amount from the petitioner no. 1 company & petitioner nos. 2 & 3 in easy installments within a period of two years. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 to sell the mortgaged properties and utilize the sale proceeds in repayment of the outstanding dues of the Respondent Bank. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide/consider the one time settlement proposal of the petitioners.” 2. The learned Single Judge granted stay on condition that the appellants shall deposit Rs. 1.50 crores. Appellants did not pay the said amount and, instead, moved an Application seeking extension of time by one month to deposit the said amount. By the order, which is impugned in this Special Appeal, the learned Single Judge proceeded to grant one month’s time; but also, at the same time, permitted the Bank to proceed with the auction, but the auction was to take final shape not before 14.09.2016. It was also ordered that, if the appellants deposit the entire amount outstanding by 14.09.2016, the auction will not be given effect to. 3. We have heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Bhanu Prakash Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. According to the appellants, they only sought extension of time, but the appellants are visited with the condition that auction proceedings can go on and, what is more, our attention is invited to the clause that, if the appellants deposit the entire amount outstanding, the auction shall not be given effect to. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, would point out that the appellants had an alternate remedy under Section 17 and the appellant had, in fact, exhausted his remedy unsuccessfully by resorting to proceedings under Section 17. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, would point out that the appellants had an alternate remedy under Section 17 and the appellant had, in fact, exhausted his remedy unsuccessfully by resorting to proceedings under Section 17. 6. Though the order is one, which is extending the time to comply with the interim order, we notice that, by virtue of the condition added that, if the appellants do not pay the entire amount, the auction can be given effect to, it virtually amounts to a judgment. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the impugned order should be modified and an order should be passed, which will give a quietus to the litigation itself. 7. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and order as follows: i. If the appellants pay a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores by 04.09.2016, the proceedings against them will be kept in abeyance. This is subject to the further condition that the appellants will also pay-off the balance amount, with due interest, in three consecutive monthly installments. In other words, after paying the amount of Rs. 1.50 crores on or before 04.09.2016, the appellants are to pay the balance amount, with due interest, in three installments; the first installment will be paid on or before 04.10.2016, the second installment will be paid on or before 04.11.2016 and the last installment will be paid on or before 10.12.2016. ii. If the appellants do not remit any of the installments, the respondent Bank will be free to proceed against the appellants as per law. iii. If the appellants pay the amount of Rs. 1.50 crores on or before 04.09.2016, the respondent Bank will serve upon the appellants a statement on or before 14.09.2016 indicating the exact amount to be paid by the appellants and also indicating the amount of the balance installments to be paid. The respondent Bank will be free to include the future and pendente lite interest. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. The writ petition also stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this judgment be issued today itself.