IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3791 of 2009. Date of Decision: 9th March, 2009. Sushil Kumar ..Petitioner through Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate Versus Chief Manager & Ors. ...Respondents through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice 27.2.2009 [Annexure P-6] purported to have been issued Section 13[4] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner's residential house is one of the 'secured assets' offered as security for the Cash Credit limit advanced by the respondent Bank to a partnership firm M/s Anil Kumar Ravinder Kumar. The firm's account having been declared NPA, a notice dated 25.11.2008 under Section 13[2] of the Act was issued to the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner has filed objections on 23.1.2009 [Annexure P-5]. His grievance is that without considering or deciding those objections, the respondent Bank has issued the impugned notice under Section 13[4] of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections dated 23.1.2009 in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Till then the petitioner's residential house shall not be put to auction. Disposed of. Dasti. March 09, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE