JUDGMENT : With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Captioned writ petition is by the petitioner, seeking to challenge the attachment notice no. T.T.C.B./Recovery/368/2023-34 dated 25.10.2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the attachment notice") issued by the respondent no. 2 Textile Traders Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the bank"). Petitioner, had availed of a cash credit facility of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Apropos which registered equitable mortgage for securing the said cash credit facility was executed between the petitioner on one hand and the bank on other. According to the petitioner, owing to inflation, there was a default in paying the installment which, led to the issuance of the notice by the bank. The petitioner, had filed reply to the notice admitting the amount and expressing willingness to pay the remainder amount. 2.1. Since the same was not paid, summary suit no. 152 of 2018 came to be filed by the bank against the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- before the learned Board of Nominees which, came to be decreed against the petitioner and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 09.09.2020, which, was subject matter of challenge before the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") by filing Appeal no. 19 of 2020 together with stay application. Vide order dated 10.03.2021, the stay application has been rejected. 2.2. Thereafter, the appeal filed before the tribunal was listed for hearing. Neither the petitioner nor the learned Advocate remained present, and hence, the appeal came to be rejected by passing an order dated 20.04.2022. Application seeking restoration of the appeal was filed which, also came to be rejected by passing an order dated 05.01.2023. The said order was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1025 of 2023 which was heard on 25.01.2023 and was kept on 30.01.2023 and after hearing both the parties, the co-ordinate bench, was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition. According to the petitioner, the order is awaited and in absence of any order, the petitioner could not approach the higher forum. 2.3. In the meantime, the bank issued the attachment notice dated 25.10.2023 seeking attachment of the equitable mortgage namely the residential premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the order is awaited and in absence of any order, the petitioner could not approach the higher forum. 2.3. In the meantime, the bank issued the attachment notice dated 25.10.2023 seeking attachment of the equitable mortgage namely the residential premises of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, has filed the captioned writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashing and setting aside the attachment notice. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.01.2023 rejecting the restoration application. 3. Mr. Aditya Gundecha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has in the earlier round of litigation, challenged the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the tribunal which, was listed for hearing on 25.01.2023 and for further hearing on 30.01.2023 and this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition, reserving the order. The order was not uploaded and the petitioner was awaiting the same. The bank has issued the attachment notice dated 25.10.2023, which exercise, is impermissible considering the fact that the petitioner would like to file an appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court. 3.1. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in the case of Viksun Steel Company vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-HC- 234137. It has been held and observed that when the appeal together with the stay application, preferred within the prescribed period of limitation, is pending, the authorities were expected to stay their hands till the stay application is decided, unless the stay application is not decided on account of default on the part of the petitioner or it is found that the petitioner is unnecessarily delaying the hearing of the stay application. 3.2. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Automark Industries Ltd. vs State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 13641 of 2015. This Court, has held and observed that if the appeal and the stay application are filed within the prescribed period of limitation and pending, the respondents are expected to act in a reasonable manner and shall stay their hands till the stay application is decided. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs, State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3107 of 2004. 3.3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs, State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3107 of 2004. 3.3. It is therefore submitted that the principle laid down in the judgments applies on all fours to the facts of the present case for the petition was dismissed, however, the order was awaited and since the petitioner is proposing to file appeal, the bank, ought not to have issued the impugned attachment notice. It is next submitted that it is not in dispute that the petition was filed, bank appeared, hearing was concluded; however, since the order was not uploaded, the petitioner could not file an appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition. It is submitted that the bank has overreached the Court process and therefore, action is bad and illegal. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-bank, has vehemently opposed the writ petition by submitting that the conduct on the part of the petitioner is not bonafide. The petitioner has availed of the loan in the year 2014 and defaulted in the year 2017. Since then, has not paid a single amount. It is clear, that the petitioner is avoiding the payment of the loan availed by it. 4.1. Referring to the litigation between the parties, it is submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed all the proceedings which are relevant, considering the challenge to the attachment notice issued under section 159 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2018 and the learned Board of Nominees by passing the order dated 08.03.2019 granted conditional leave to defend and the petitioner was required to pay 30% of the suit amount. The petitioner instead of accepting the conditional leave to defend, approached the tribunal but it, did not entertain the application and passed an order dated 29.11.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 281 of 2020, and the same was rejected, observing that there was nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was facing financial hardship. Infact, while rejecting the writ petition, this Court has clearly observed that the dues are admitted. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 281 of 2020, and the same was rejected, observing that there was nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was facing financial hardship. Infact, while rejecting the writ petition, this Court has clearly observed that the dues are admitted. It is submitted that when the dues are admitted, the petitioner had no option but to pay the outstanding amount. 4.2. It is further submitted that since the petitioner did not act as per the order passed by the learned Board of Nominees that the decree was followed. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the tribunal together with the stay application and it, came to be rejected vide order dated 10.03.2021. It is submitted that though it has been stated that the order was subject matter of challenge before this Court, the averments are bereft of any details and till date, atleast not to the knowledge of the bank, any proceedings have been filed challenging the order dated 10.03.2021. 4.3. It is submitted that subsequent to the order dated 10.03.2021, the appeal came to be rejected for want of prosecution by passing an order dated 20.04.2022; followed by the order dated 05.01.2023 rejecting the application seeking restoration of the appeal. Petition being Special Civil Application No. 1025 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner, which, was heard on 25.01.2023 and on 30.01.2023, the same was dismissed, which is clear from the status and not denied by the petitioner as well. It is true that the order is awaited but, the petitioner has not taken any steps either by filing any application before the learned single Judge or an appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench. Therefore, to say that since the order was not available, the appeal could not be filed, will be an excuse only to cover up the inaction on the part of the petitioner. 4.4. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the stay application before the tribunal, recovery notice dated 23.03.2021 was issued by the bank under the provisions of section 159 of the Act. The same was challenged before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Cooperation Department which, came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2022. 4.4. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the stay application before the tribunal, recovery notice dated 23.03.2021 was issued by the bank under the provisions of section 159 of the Act. The same was challenged before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Cooperation Department which, came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2022. The Deputy Secretary was of the opinion that the decree has been passed and the bank is right in recovering the said amount. The petitioner once again, filed Miscellaneous Application before the Deputy Secretary, the same also came to be rejected by passing an order dated 27.12.2022. Said two orders have attained finality. 4.5. It is next submitted that therefore, the petitioner, in row, has filed proceedings one after another, only with a view to seeing that the dues are not paid. At no point of time, the petitioner, had shown its willingness to deposit any amount. The bank since was interested in seeing that the bank receives the money, it has addressed a communication dated 01.01.2024 giving reasonable offer requiring the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total amount within a period of one month and remaining 25% within another three months and rest of the amount within a period of eight months. However, the petitioners had shown inclination to deposit a meager amount of Rs.25,00,000/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.3,79,47,174/-. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner, is clear that it does not want to pay any amount. 4.6. It is submitted that as many as three rounds of litigation have been initiated and concluded against the petitioner and the fourth is the captioned writ petition. During all the rounds of litigation, the orders have been passed against the petitioner and in favour of the bank. The captioned writ petition is another attempt on the part of the writ petitioner to avoid the payment. Challenge to the attachment notice, so also, the order dated 05.01.2023, would be impermissible for, in the earlier round of litigation the very same order dated 05.01.2023 was a subject matter, and the petition as per the case status has been dismissed. 4.7. It is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed also on the ground of suppression of material fact. The petitioner has made a reference of the proceedings before the tribunal. 4.7. It is submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed also on the ground of suppression of material fact. The petitioner has made a reference of the proceedings before the tribunal. However, deliberately, the petitioner has not referred to the events which took place at the stage of grant of conditional leave to defend and the rejection of the writ petition by this Court. Also, the proceedings before the State Government are not disclosed. The said events would be relevant, more particularly, when the petitioner is challenging the attachment notice issued by the bank. It is submitted that had the details of the proceedings been disclosed in the writ petition, this Hon’ble Court would not have granted any protection to the petitioner in view of the successive failure on the part of the petitioner in seeking any order. 4.8. It is submitted that reliance on the judgments would be misplaced for, the facts in the present case are gross. In the said judgments, the appeals were filed within limitation together with the stay application and applications were pending therefore, this Court has observed that on one hand, the stay application is not decided and on other hand, the attachment notice has been issued. As against this, in the present case the stay application came to be rejected on 10.03.2021 with no further proceedings, challenging the said rejection. In absence of any appeal or stay application pending, the judgments cannot be made applicable. It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed and the bank be permitted to proceed with the notice dated 25.10.2023. 5. Mr. Aditya Gundecha, learned Advocate in brief rejoinder has tried to justify the non-disclosure of the facts prior to 31.01.2023 viz. the aspects of conditional leave to defend and the proceedings before the State Government. It is submitted that the same are prior to 31.01.2023 i.e. before the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, as the judgment is awaited, the petitioner with selfsame grounds has challenged the notice. It is next submitted that earlier, the bank did not make any offer, but it was only during the pendency and recently, that the offer has been submitted by the bank. Mr. Gundecha, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of one month and thereafter, Rs.2,00,000/- every month. It is next submitted that earlier, the bank did not make any offer, but it was only during the pendency and recently, that the offer has been submitted by the bank. Mr. Gundecha, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of one month and thereafter, Rs.2,00,000/- every month. With this, it is submitted that the petition may be entertained. 6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material available on record. 7. Tersely stated are various stages of proceedings and the facts for adjudicating the prayers of the petitioner. 8. Owing to the default on the part of the petitioner in the year 2017, the bank, filed a summary suit no. 152 of 2018 against the petitioner and the guarantors for recovery of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The petitioner preferred an application seeking leave to defend which, was granted by the learned Board of Nominees by passing an order dated 08.03.2019 directing the petitioner to pay 30% of the outstanding amount. Petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the tribunal which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.11.2019. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No. 281 of 2020 before this Court and this Court rejected the writ petition by passing an order dated 29.01.2020. Paragraphs 8 and 11 read thus: “8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the record indicate that loan facility to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Fifty Lakhs only) was sanctioned on 09-09-2014. It appears that on account of default to pay the installment, demand notice was issued on 22-03- 2017. The reply of the petitioner to such demand notice would indicate further prayer for time to pay the installment. But the dues are clearly admitted. On account of non-payment of installment, suit came to be filed on 19-05-2018. It appears that in response to the suit, the petitioner has filed leave to defend and reply to the suit after almost delay of 237 days. Section-99. 5(a) of the Gujarat Co-operative Society Act, 1961, which is reads as under: “5(a) The defendant shall not be entitled to defend the dispute unless he obtains leave from the Registrar, his nominee or, as the case may be, the board of nominees, in such manner as may be prescribed.” 9. *** 10. *** 11. Section-99. 5(a) of the Gujarat Co-operative Society Act, 1961, which is reads as under: “5(a) The defendant shall not be entitled to defend the dispute unless he obtains leave from the Registrar, his nominee or, as the case may be, the board of nominees, in such manner as may be prescribed.” 9. *** 10. *** 11. In view of the aforesaid position, more particularly when nothing has appeared on record to indicate the financial status to justify the contention of the petitioner of his financial hardship, the Court is not inclined to interfere.” 9. Clearly, this Court has observed that the dues are admitted on account of non-payment of installment. It is also observed that nothing was placed on record by the petitioner to justify the financial hardship. The Court was not inclined to interfere and the petition came to be dismissed. 10. Notably, the option was very much available to the petitioner to have paid the amount and contested the suit; however, the petitioner chose not to do so and as a result whereof the suit came to be decreed on 09.09.2020. The learned Board of Nominees directed the respondent-bank to recover an amount of Rs.2,18,37,114/- from the petitioner by selling the property mortgaged with the bank. 11. Another stage was challenge to the judgment dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Board of Nominees before the tribunal together with the stay application – Exh. 4. Stay as prayed for, came to be rejected. The tribunal, was of the opinion that when the petitioner had failed to deposit any amount as directed by the learned Board of Nominees, leave to defend cannot be granted at the stage of appeal and if the stay is granted, the bank, even after decree in its favour, would not be in a position to recover the dues. The request of the stay came to be rejected. Though it is stated that petition was filed, till date, and also during the hearing, the learned advocate has not placed anything on record to suggest that the said order was challenged before the higher forum. In absence of any challenge, the order dated 10.05.2021 refusing the stay has attained finality. In absence of any stay operating, to suggest that the bank will not have any authority to issue any notice, is stated to be rejected. 12. In absence of any challenge, the order dated 10.05.2021 refusing the stay has attained finality. In absence of any stay operating, to suggest that the bank will not have any authority to issue any notice, is stated to be rejected. 12. Referring to another stage, it is required to be noted that the appeal was dismissed. Infact, neither the petitioner nor the learned Advocate for the petitioner, remained present and therefore the tribunal passed an order below Exh.1, dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. The petitioner preferred an application seeking restoration; however, the said application came to be rejected by passing an order dated 05.01.2023. The said order was subject matter of challenge before this Court by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 1025 of 2023 which according to the petitioner, was heard on 25.01.2023 and further hearing on 30.01.2023. The petitioner has stated that the said writ petition was dismissed which, is discernible from the case status produced on the record of the captioned writ petition. Nothing has been placed on record suggesting any steps or recourse taken by the petitioner as permissible and available in law. Since there was no stay and the petition having been dismissed that, the bank had issued a notice dated 25.10.2023. It is this notice which, has given rise to the captioned writ petition. 13. One more stage also needs to be adverted to, that is, the proceedings before the State Government. In past, similar attachment notice dated 23.03.2021 under section 159 of the Act was issued, which, was challenged before the Deputy Secretary, who, by passing a reasoned order has rejected the appeal taking note of the proceedings before the learned Board of Nominees and the order passed by it. The Deputy Secretary, therefore, was of the opinion that in view of the decree dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Board of Nominees, the bank, is at liberty to take steps and the steps taken were in conformity with the provisions of section 159 and the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965. The petitioner once again preferred the Miscellaneous Application which, also came to be rejected vide order dated 27.12.2022. 14. Considering the proceedings, it is clear that the petitioner has lost in succession. Discernibly, all the orders passed by the authorities are against the petitioner. The petitioner once again preferred the Miscellaneous Application which, also came to be rejected vide order dated 27.12.2022. 14. Considering the proceedings, it is clear that the petitioner has lost in succession. Discernibly, all the orders passed by the authorities are against the petitioner. Despite which, the petitioner has not shown slightest inclination to pay any amount against the whopping sum of Rs.3,79,47,174/-. The offer which has been given by the petitioner is of a meagre amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and monthly installment of Rs.2,00,000/-. During the course of the hearing, the petitioner was granted opportunity to come with a concrete offer; however, the petitioner reiterated its earlier offer, which cannot be said to be sufficient to discharge the dues, which are outstanding since 2017, i.e. close to 8 years. 15. So far as the attachment notice under section 159 of the Act is concerned, the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the said notice is illegal or bad in law except stating that the judgment is awaited. When the decree has been passed and the stay application, having been dismissed, it is difficult to appreciate as to why the bank should not be permitted to initiate recovery proceedings which, otherwise, is permissible and within its powers. Admittedly, the loan was sanctioned in the year 2014 and the dues outstanding are Rs.3,79,47,174/-. Pertinently, the amount involved is a public money and when the party avails of the facility, it is incumbent upon it, to honour the same. Undisputedly, the petitioner has defaulted in payment. 16. The contention is also raised by the respondent that there was suppression of material fact on the part of the petitioner for, the petitioner has knowingly not disclosed the aspect of conditional leave to defend granted by this Court and having lost before this Court, so also proceedings before the State Government. In the present writ petition, the challenge, inter alia, is to the attachment notice dated 25.10.2023 issued under the provisions of Section 159 of the Act. Therefore, when similar such issue has already been decided by the State Government by passing the orders and the orders having attained finality, it was expected of the petitioner to have stated those facts. Non-disclosure of the said facts, was not in a right earnest and on this ground as well, the request of the petitioner, deserves to be rejected. 17. Non-disclosure of the said facts, was not in a right earnest and on this ground as well, the request of the petitioner, deserves to be rejected. 17. In the judgments cited by the petitioner, the appeals were filed within the period of limitation and the stay applications were pending. During the pendency of the hearing of the stay application that the proceedings were initiated, so is not the case here. In the case on hand, neither the appeal is pending nor any stay application. As against this, the petitioner has lost at all the stages, namely, the conditional leave to defend though was granted not availed of by the petitioner, followed by rejection of appeal before the Tribunal and rejection of the writ petition as well. Decree was followed and appeal was filed. The stay application filed before the Tribunal came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2021 which order, has not been challenged so far and therefore, the judgments cited, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. Therefore, on all the counts, the captioned writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Notice is discharged. 19. At this stage, Mr. Aditya Gundecha, learned Advocate, has prayed for extension of stay granted by this Court, which request, is opposed by learned advocate for the bank 20. Considering the fact that the dues being outstanding since the year 2017 and the petitioner having defaulted in payment, the stay granted by this Court does not deserve to be extended and the request is hereby rejected.