JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant Prakash Ramadas Kamat has filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 07-01-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed that since the sale of petitioner’s property has already taken place before the order was passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 6157/09 on 24.4.2009 by which, though the appeal of the present petitioner/appellant was dismissed, a period of 3 months was granted by Division Bench to him to pay the dues of the petitioner/appellant to the respondent/Indian Bank and which he had paid and the learned Single Judge, therefore, observed in the operative portion of the order dated 07-01-2015 that since the sale deed under the provision of SARFACI Act, 2002 has already been executed on 01-04-2009, the petitioner should seek any further orders from the Division Bench in the said appeal with notice to the respondent therein. The matter was thereafter adjourned for a period of four weeks and said WP. No. 67216/2009 is said to be still pending before the learned Single Judge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant Mr. V.P. Kulkarni has urged before us in the present appeal that the learned Single Judge by the said interlocutory order dated 07-01-2015 could have not directed the petitioner-appellant to approach the Division Bench itself for clarification of its order dated 24-04-2009 and such a direction is not sustainable. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before the Division Bench of this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent however supported the impugned order. 4. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that no interference in the said Interlocutory order dated 07.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge is called for at this stage. We do not see any mandate or direction in the said interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge to approach the Division Bench for seeking any clarification. 4. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that no interference in the said Interlocutory order dated 07.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge is called for at this stage. We do not see any mandate or direction in the said interlocutory order passed by the Single Judge to approach the Division Bench for seeking any clarification. The learned Single Judge has only expressed that in view of the developments of facts in the case that the sale of the property of the petitioner had already taken place which fact does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Division Bench while passing the order on 24.04.2009, if any consequential or other appropriate directions were to be sought by the petitioner, they could be sought only from the Division Bench of this court which has passed the orders on 24-04-2009, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner/appellant but the Division Bench had granted 3 months to pay the dues to the respondent-Bank. 5. We do not find anything wrong in the direction of the learned Single Judge and it is for the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy as suggested in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.