JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant herein, had filed an intervenor petition in W.P. (C) No. 1360 of 2017, pending before the Writ Court, but there is no order, allowing the said intervenor petition. Consequently, the intervenor petitioner was never a party before the Writ Court. 3. However, the intervenor petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2018, passed in W.P. (C) No. 1360 of 2017, whereby, the writ application filed by the writ petitioner, who is the proforma respondent herein, was dismissed by the Writ Court. 4. This appeal is filed after a delay of 32 days and accordingly, I.A. No. 787 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay. Another I.A. No. 4051 of 2019 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal to this Court, as the intervenor was not a party before the Writ Court. 5. The facts of this case, as reveled from the impugned Judgment, are that the petitioner proforma respondent Company, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing chemical products, had approached the respondent Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation (herein after referred to as the BICICO), for sanction of a term loan of Rs. 85 Lakhs, out of which, loan of Rs. 79 Lakhs was sanctioned. Sans the other unnecessary details, as the loan amount was not repaid by the petitioner Company, the petitioner Company was asked to settle the outstanding amount of BICICO. Lastly the outstanding amount with interest had swollen to Rs. 31,79,10,000/- out of which, the principal amount was Rs. 79 Lakhs and due to fact that no settlement could reach between the petitioner Company and the respondent BICICO, ultimately, the notice for selling the mortgaged property was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner Company replied to the said notice on 21.09.2016, showing its eagerness for one time settlement of the loan amount with reduced interest burden. However, the fact remains that ultimately, the mortgaged property was put to auction sale, in which the respondent No. 4, M/s Bhawani Enterprises offered the highest bid of Rs. 1.51 Crores, whereas the intervenor, the appellant herein, had offered an amount of Rs. 81 Lakhs in the said auction sale. However, the fact remains that ultimately, the mortgaged property was put to auction sale, in which the respondent No. 4, M/s Bhawani Enterprises offered the highest bid of Rs. 1.51 Crores, whereas the intervenor, the appellant herein, had offered an amount of Rs. 81 Lakhs in the said auction sale. As per the provisions of SFC Act, the respondent, BICICO vide letter dated 17.02.2017 offered the petitioner Company, to retain the property in question, on payment of equal amount as offered by the respondent, M/s Bhawani Enterprises. Some response was made by the petitioner Company, which was turned down by BICICO and the auction sale was completed with the respondent M/s Bhawani Enterprises, and they were also handed over the possession of the premises, they also came in actual possession and they got the electricity connection in their name. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Company approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 1360 of 2017, claiming that the BICICO ought to have accepted the proposal made by the petitioner, and also claiming that the auction sale of the property to M/s Bhawani Enterprises, be set aside. The said writ application was ultimately dismissed by the Writ Court by the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2018. 7. The impugned order passed by the Writ Court shows that against the refusal to grant the interim relief to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner Company had preferred L.P.A. No. 154 of 2017, in which, vide order dated 20.04.2017, there was an order for maintaining the status quo, on the condition of depositing Rs. 1.51 Crores by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the Court. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner Company deposited the amount, and here comes the role of the present intervenor, as it is claimed that the entire amount was actually advanced by the appellant intervenor petitioner, to the petitioner proforma respondent, for making the deposit before the Registrar General. Subsequently, the said L.P.A. was withdrawn by the petitioner proforma respondent and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.10.2017, though allowed the withdrawal of the L.P.A. but directed that the amount deposited shall remain with the Court, which shall be settled towards the final liability, if any, of the petitioner proforma respondent, arising out of the writ application. As stated earlier, the said writ application was also ultimately dismissed by the Writ Court by the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1360 of 2017. While dismissing the Writ application, the Registrar General of the Court was directed to release the amount of Rs. 1.51 Crores deposited by the petitioner Company, in favour of the respondent BICICO, which was to be adjusted against the outstanding dues of the petitioner Company, i.e. the proforma respondent, herein. 8. The impugned Judgment further shows that during the final hearing of the said writ application, learned counsel for the appellant intervenor had submitted before the Writ Court, that the amount had actually been deposited by the intervenor, as per the agreement between the intervenor and the petitioner Company, executed on 28.04.2017, for the sale of property, and if any order is passed against the petitioner, the amount lying with the Registrar General of this Court may be directed to be disbursed to the intervenor. This prayer of the intervenor was rejected by the Writ Court and accordingly, the intervenor is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2018, and has challenged that part of the impugned Judgment in the present L.P.A. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant intervenor has submitted that even though, the intervenor was not a party before the Writ Court, but in view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 1 Crore 51 Lakhs was advanced to the petitioner Company by the intervenor, for being deposited before the Registrar General, pursuant to the order passed by the L.P.A. Court, the amount ought to have been refunded to the intervenor, while dismissing of the writ application, and accordingly, the intervenor is entitled to file the present L.P.A. claiming the relief to that extent. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has opposed the prayer, submitting that the L.P.A. is not maintainable by the intervenor, who was neither a party in the writ application, nor a party to the dispute, at any point of time, and whatever arrangement might be there between the intervenor and the writ petitioner, was a private arrangement between them, with which, neither the dispute pending before the Writ Court was in any manner concerned, nor the intervenor could have approached the Writ Court for refund of the amount, which as per the records of this Court was deposited by the petitioner Company and not by the intervenor, pursuant to the order of the L.P.A. Court. 11. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the appellant intervenor herein, is just an alien to the dispute involved in the writ application. He was nowhere concerned with the dispute in hand, as neither he was concerned with the loan taken by the writ petitioner from the BICICO, nor he was concerned with the re-payment of the same. When the mortgaged property was put to auction sale, he was an unsuccessful bidder. The property was ultimately auction sold to the successful bidder, the respondent No. 4, who has also been put to possession of the sold property. Whatever dispute is being raised by the appellant intervenor, is just a private arrangement between the writ petitioner Company and the intervenor, and even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted that in fact, the appellant intervenor had advanced the amount of Rs. 1 Crore 51 Lakhs, to the writ petitioner which the writ petitioner Company had deposited in the Court, the risk was taken by the appellant voluntarily, which was neither thrust upon him by the L.P.A. Court, nor by the Writ Court. In fact the claim of the appellant shows that there is a private dispute between the appellant and the writ petitioner, and both of them want that the liability of the writ petitioner be resolved by the Writ Court. This is purely a private money dispute confined between the writ petitioner Company and the appellant herein, with which the other parties to the writ application had no concern. This is purely a private money dispute confined between the writ petitioner Company and the appellant herein, with which the other parties to the writ application had no concern. The remedy for recovery of the amount of the appellant from the writ petitioner proforma respondent, lay elsewhere, and not before the Writ Court. 12. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for the appellant to have interfered in the writ application to settle his claim, which was rightly not allowed by the Writ Court. The intervenor appellant might have some dispute to be settled with the petitioner which arose due to purely private arrangement between the petitioner Company and the intervenor, for which, as stated above, the remedy lies before another forum, and certainly not before the Writ Court. 13. We are of considered view that for the foregoing reasons, the appellant intervenor has no locus standi to challenge the final Judgment passed by the Writ Court, in the present L.P.A. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, no useful purpose is going to be served by condoning the delay of 32 days in filing this appeal, nor any question arises to grant leave the appellant for filing the present appeal. Accordingly, both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications stand dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is also hereby, dismissed, being not maintainable by the present appellant.