ORDER : 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for refund of the forfeited amount pursuant to failure of the petitioner to make the balance payment of 75% of the auction price of the property in question. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The petitioner made an application in e-auction held by the respondent bank for purchase of the property being free old land to the extent of 249.71 sq.mts. at plot No.24-25, Block No.129/ paiki 15, 129/ paiki 16, property no.992, ten road, Bardoli and building there at to the extent of 6239 sq. ft. (Ground floor – RCC – 1441 sq. ft.- Slopping roof 1349 sq. ft. + First Floor RCC 1820 sq. ft. - slopping roof – 427 sq. ft. + second floor 1202 sq. ft.) standing in the name of Mr.Nitinbhai Naginbhai Panchal, Mr.Jayeshbhai Naginbhai Panchal and Mr.Dilipbhai Naginbhai Panchal. 2.2 The auction sale was conducted on 20.09.2022 and the petitioner offered highest bid of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. After giving set off of the earnest money deposit of Rs.10,70,000/- deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner was asked by the respondent bank vide letter dated 20.09.2022 to deposit the balance amount of Rs.16,30,000/- being 25% of the bid amount before 21.09.2022. 2.3 The petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs.27,00,000/- being 25% of the bid amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- on 20.09.2022. The petitioner was therefore asked by the respondent bank vide letter dated 20.09.2022 to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.81,00,000/- within 15 days i.e. on or before 05.10.2022, as per the Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”). 2.4 The petitioner by letter dated 03.10.2022 sought extension of time for payment of remaining 75% of the amount of Rs.81,00,000/-. 2.5 It appears that in the meanwhile, the respondent bank was in negotiation with the original borrower and accordingly by letter dated 14.11.2022 addressed to the original borrower, it was informed by the bank that the One Time Settlement (herein after referred to as “O.T.S”) proposal for Rs.6,50,00,000/- was accepted by the respondent bank and the cut-off date for payment was kept on 30.11.2022. 2.6 By letter dated 28.11.2022, however, the respondent bank again informed the original borrower to adhere to the time limit to avail the benefit of O.T.S before 30.11.2022 with a stipulation that no further time will be granted. 2.7. According to learned advocate, copies of these letters were provided to the petitioner by the respondent Bank and the petitioner was informed not to make payment of balance amount. 2.8 It appears that as the original borrower did not make the payment as per the O.T.S., the respondent bank by letter dated 06.12.2022 informed the petitioner to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022 as per the provision of Rule 9(4) of the Rules with a stipulation that no time can be extended beyond the said date as that is a mandatory requirement under the said Rules that the respondent bank can grant time for payment of the sale consideration to the auction purchaser up to 90 days from the date of auction. 2.9 The respondent bank by letter dated 16.12.2022 again informed the petitioner to deposit Rs.81,00,000/- on or before 19.12.2022, failing which, the amount of Rs.27,00,000/- remitted by the petitioner would be forfeited. 2.10 The petitioner thereafter on 17.12.2022 informed the bank as to within what time the sale document would be executed and within what time the possession of the property would be given to the petitioner after making the full payment, but, did not make the payment of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022. 2.11 The petitioner by letter dated 18.12.2022 addressed to the Authorized Officer of the respondent Bank in reply to the letter dated 06.12.2022 informed to the respondent Bank that in view of the acceptance of the O.T.S. of the borrower, the petitioner who arranged the funds from his friends and relatives could not now arrange the funds as he informed to his friends and relatives not to arrange money for him. It was also contended by the petitioner that the Bank was supposed to refund the amount of Rs.27,00,000/- pursuant to the acceptance of the O.T.S. on 02.12.2022 instead now the petitioner was told on 06.12.2022 to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration on or before 19.12.2022 as the borrower did not make payment of O.T.S. amount within the time stipulated by the respondent Bank. The petitioner therefore informed the respondent Bank that in view of the uncertainty about the further process of sale, a letter dated 17.12.2022 seeking information about the handing over of the physical possession of the property as well as execution of the registered conveyance in favour of the petitioner was required, so as to enable the petitioner to make payment of the balance consideration of Rs.81,00,000/-. 2.12 The respondent Bank by letter dated 19.12.2022 in reply to the letter of the petitioner dated 18.12.2022 informed the petitioner that the respondent Bank never asked the petitioner not to make payment of the remaining 75% of the bid amount but the time as sought by the petitioner was extended up to 19.12.2022 in response to his letter dated 03.10.2022. It was also informed to the petitioner that as per the letter dated 06.12.2022, the petitioner was put to notice that no time can be extended beyond 19.12.2022 as per Rule 9(4) of the Rules. 2.13. With regard to the letter dated 17.12.2022, it was pointed out by the respondent Bank that the said letter was given by the petitioner on the closing hours of Saturday and the auction was conducted on the basis of the “As is where is”, “As is what is” and “Whatever there is” and therefore the petitioner cannot make any condition of physical possession for making the balance payment of the bid amount. The petitioner was again put to notice by the respondent Bank that maximum time limit as permissible under Rule 9(4) of the Rules was up to 19.12.2022, to make payment of the remaining 75% of the bid amount, failing which, the respondent Bank would be constrained to forfeit the deposited amount as per the Rule 9(5) of the Rules. 2.14 As the petitioner failed to make the payment of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022, the respondent bank issued the notice dated 20.12.2022 for forfeiture of the 25% deposit amounting Rs.27,00,000/-. 2.15 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid forfeiture notice, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip C. Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was informed by the respondent bank by providing the letters dated 14.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 for not making the payment in view of the O.T.S proposal of the original borrower accepted by the respondent bank. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip C. Bhatt for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was informed by the respondent bank by providing the letters dated 14.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 for not making the payment in view of the O.T.S proposal of the original borrower accepted by the respondent bank. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the O.T.S proposal was accepted by the bank it was natural for the petitioner to take assurance from the respondent bank with regard to the execution of the sale deed and the possession of the property before making the full payment of the balance consideration of Rs.81,00,000/-. 4. It was therefore submitted that the action of the respondent bank in entertaining the O.T.S proposal after the auction property was not legal and in that view of the matter, the respondent bank cannot forfeit the amount of the deposit of Rs.27,00,000/- made by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the respondent bank by letter dated 06.12.2022 informed the petitioner to make the balance amount payment of Rs.81,00,000/- before 19.12.2022, which is the maximum time limit which can be sanctioned by the respondent bank under Rule 9(4) of the Rules. 6. It would therefore be germane to refer to the Rule 9 of the Rules which reads as under: “9. 6. It would therefore be germane to refer to the Rule 9 of the Rules which reads as under: “9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- [(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower: Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.] (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorized officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of [rule 8]: Provided further that if the authorized officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. [(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again;] (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months]. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.” 7. On perusal of the above Rules, it is clear that the balance amount of the purchase price payable by the auction purchaser is mandatorily to be paid to the respondent bank on or before the 15th day of the confirmation of the sale of the immovable property or the extended period as may be agreed in writing by the purchaser and the respondent bank, in any case, not exceeding three months. 8. In the facts of the case, the auction was held on 20.09.2022 and therefore, three months would be over on 19.12.2022. Therefore, as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules, the respondent bank which is a secured creditor cannot extend the period for payment of the balance amount of the purchase price payable by the petitioner beyond 19.12.2022. Therefore, once the petitioner has failed to make the balance amount of the purchase price within three months, the operation of sub-rule (5) would come into play which provides that in default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4) the deposit shall be forfeited by by the respondent bank and the property shall be resold. 9. Therefore, the respondent bank has rightly issued notice to forfeit the amount of Rs.27,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner as sufficient time of three months was given to the petitioner for deposit of the balance amount of Rs.81,00,000/- which was not deposited by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, though, the respondent bank by letter dated 06.12.2022 as well as by letter dated 16.12.2022 informed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount on or before 19.12.2022, failing which, the amount of deposit of Rs.27,00,000/- being 25% of the purchase price payable by the petitioner was to be forfeited. 10. 10. In view of the clear provision of the Rules, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that because the respondent bank sanctioned O.T.S proposal with the original borrower and the petitioner was informed accordingly, cannot be the excuse for not making the payment within the mandatory time period of three months as per the Rule 9(4) of the Rules. 11. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.