Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Ikbal and Ors.6 wherein referring to Rule 9(4) of the Rules, it was held that the time for deposit stipulated therein is not sacrosanct and may be extended if there is a written agreement between the parties. 16. In the case at hand, the correspondence between the parties reveals that the respondents only sought extension of time for the reason that the appellant-Bank itself was not in a position to accept the amount as there was a complaint to the CBI, an advisory of the ED and a stay from the High 5 (2023) 2 SCC 168 6 (2013) 10 SCC 83 11Court. The silence on part of the appellant-Bank in either immediately revoking the sale confirmation or refusing to extend the time, impliedly amounted to extension of time in writing with consent. 17. Secondly, the non-deposit of the balance sale consideration within the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(4) was not attributable to the respondents so as to call them defaulters within the meaning of the provisions