IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16081 of 2007 1.ARJUN PRASAD son of late Ramji Mahto. 2.Smt. Sudama Devi widow of late Ramji Mahto. Both residents of Kautilya Nagar, Near S.U. College More, Hilsa, P S Hilsa, District – Nalanda. Versus 1.STATE BANK OF INDIA through its Chief Manager, Region No.3, Zonal Office, J C Road, Patna. 2.Chief Manager (C.S.E.), State Bank of India, Region No.3, Zonal Office, J C Road, Patna-1. 3.Brnach Manager, State Bank of India, Hilsa Branch, Nalanda. ----------- 02. 12.03.2010 When a notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act was issued to the petitioners on 26.9.2007, they rushed to this Court and filed the present writ application challenging the said notice. Today learned senior counsel representing the petitioners states that whatever could be the reason earlier for the default, petitioners are now willing to settle the issue if only the bank takes a holistic view of the matter and settles the dispute by give and take by way of one time settlement in this regard. The averment of the petitioners that their earlier request made to the bank has been denied. Since the petitioners have expressed their desire to resolve the issue, they have freedom to approach the concerned branch of the bank with their offer within a period of four weeks from today and the Branch Manager keeping in mind the relevant circulars on the issue may try to resolve the dispute between the parties by considering the offer and exemption which the petitioners may be entitled to as a one time settlement. 2 The Court expects the bank to resolve the issue within a time-frame if the petitioners approach with their offer. The writ application stands disposed of with above liberty. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )