counsel appearing for the respondent – bank would submit that though the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to repay the loan dues, he was only able to pay the first installment and did not pay the second equal installment of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) on or before 15.12.2022, as directed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 20.10.2022 in S.A.No.354 of 2022. Therefore, the respondent – bank was constrained to issue the second sale notice, dated 20.12.2022. Once again, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtained a conditional order, dated 06.01.2023. Regrettably, the petitioner did not comply with any of the conditions imposed in the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.7 of 2023. Therefore, when the Debts Recovery Tribunal has shown indulgence by passing the conditional order, dated 06.01.2023, without complying with the same, the petitioner cannot misuse the indulgence shown by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If the petitioner had complied with the conditional order, the bank would not have issued the second sale notice. In the present case, without
