JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.1.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1060/2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order dated 4.10.2017 was dismissed. 2. As per brief facts of the case on 29.2.2102 a loan of Rs. 15 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-appellant by the respondent-bank. The petitioner-appellant did not make payment of instalments, therefore, proceedings were initiated for recovery of the loan amount firstly by filing complaint under section 138 of the NI Act, so also, the bank issued proclamation on 12.7.2016 and house of the petitioner-appellant was put to auction. The petitioner-appellant preferred revision petition before the learned Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur, so also, filed stay application, but the respondent No. 4 rejected the stay application filed along with the revision petition vide order dated 4.10.2017 on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5 lacs which was ordered to be deposited by him under the order dated 26.5.2017/22.8.2017 passed in revision petition was not deposited by the petitioner-appellant. The learned appellate authority passed detailed order while considering the fact that in spite of clear cut order in the revision petition to deposit Rs. 5 lacs, not a single penny is deposited by the petitioner-appellant towards his outstanding, therefore, vacated the stay granted in revision petition vide order dated 4.10.2017. 3. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant categorically observed that petitioner-appellant has failed to deposit Rs. 5 lacs so also did not deposit a single penny with the respondent bank, therefore, no interference is called for and dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 21.1.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in all Rs. 11 lacs was deposited by the petitioner-appellant and he is poor agriculturists, therefore, as per the scheme formulated by the government, the bank is under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for depositing the outstanding amount and this prayer was made before the learned Single Judge, but the learned Single Judge did not consider the said prayer, therefore, the order impugned may kindly be quashed. 5. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, we are of the opinion that the petitioner-appellant is not entitled for any relief because in the revision petition, the stay was granted upon condition that he will deposit Rs. 5 lacs but not a single penny was deposited by him, therefore, the revisional court vacated the stay order, therefore, there is no question to interfere in this special appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner-appellant is hereby granted liberty to file an application before the learned revisional court for early hearing of the revision petition and in the event of filing of such application within a period of 15 days from today the it is expected from the learned Addl. Registrar (Appeals), Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur to decide the revision petition itself within a period of one month thereafter.