JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the certificate of sale dated 27.05.2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent-Allahabad Bank (now known as Indian Bank) by which the sole immovable property of the petitioner was auction-sold. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Bank to issue fresh demand notice to the petitioner with break-up of the principal amount and the interest levied thereupon. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Bank for adhering to the requirements of the principles of natural justice by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to it before taking steps for realisation of due loan amount. 3. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned A.C. to Mr. P.S.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that prior to issuance of the impugned certificate of sale dated 27.05.2021, the respondent-Bank had taken all due steps as required under different provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2002’) including issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002. The petitioner being a borrower had alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 against the impugned certificate of sale dated 27.05.2021 which it did not avail. 4. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002 against the petitioner, a substantial amount to the extent of Rs. 4,20,000/- was already been realised by the respondent-Bank and the petitioner was also willing to deposit the balance amount of loan in easy instalments, however, the respondent-Bank did not respond to the same. 5. Be that as it may. 6. The moot issue is as to whether the present writ petition can be entertained after issuance of the impugned sale certificate dated 27.05.2021 by the respondent-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser of the property in question (the respondent No. 2). 7. 5. Be that as it may. 6. The moot issue is as to whether the present writ petition can be entertained after issuance of the impugned sale certificate dated 27.05.2021 by the respondent-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser of the property in question (the respondent No. 2). 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 has clearly held that timely repayment of loan by a borrower also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need by circulation of the money which cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is a defaulter in making repayment of loan amount to the respondent-Bank in time. The respondent-Bank, after following due process of law as provided under the Act, 2002 including issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002, proceeded to finally put the property in question on auction, which has now been purchased by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner had ample opportunity to prefer appropriate application raising its grievance against the action of the respondent-Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, however, it did not choose to do so. Hence, no interference is warranted with the impugned certificate of sale dated 27.05.2021 at this belated stage. 9. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.