IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20169 of 2011 1. Smt.Sunaina Devi wife of Shri Shyam Kishore Singh 2. Dilip Kumar Singh son of Shri Shyam Kishore Singh. Both residents of Mohalla Sidheshwari Nagar, Mainpura, P.S. Patliputra, District Patna…………………...Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955, through its General Manager, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-21. 2. The Assistant General Manager, Local Head Office, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1. 3. The Chief Manager (Compromise & SARFAESI) Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Resolution Branch, State Bank of India, Administrative Officer, 2nd Floor, Patna Main Branch Building, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, S.K. Puri, P.S. S.K. Puri, town and District Patna………………………………………...Respondents. For the petitioners :Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate with M/s Dineshwar Prasad Singh and Kamlakant Tiwari, Advocates. For the Bank : M/s Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha and Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocates. ---------------------------------- 02/ 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents-State Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 15.11.2011 passed in R.A. No.09 of 2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna as contained in Annexure-3 and also to stay the operation of auction sale going to be held on 21.11.2011 with respect to Plot no.1758/1759 appertaining to Khata nos.192 and 245, Tauzi no.5153/15277, Thana no.2, area 01 katha 10 dhurs situated at Mohalla - Mainpura, P.S.- Patliputra town and district Patna as published in daily Hindi newspaper - 2 - “Hindustan” dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure-2) and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that housing loan was taken by the petitioners from the respondent-Bank and subsequently due to non-payment of the installment secured assets were declared Non-Performing Assets and proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) was initiated in which notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was issued and notice under section 13 (4) of the Act was also subsequently issued. 4. It further transpires that against notice under section 13 (4) of the Act the petitioners filed an appeal bearing S.A. No.85 of 2011. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure-1) in which it was found that the petitioners had already deposited Rs.3.68 lacs, whereafter three months time had been granted to the petitioners to pay the entire dues to the Bank which should be paid by November, 2011 and if the said order is complied the Bank will withdraw all the cases against the petitioners. It was also directed that the Bank would fix four installments for the remaining dues but if any of two consecutive installments are not paid the said order will not be in operation. 5. It transpires that the said order was passed in presence of learned counsel for the both the sides but it also - 3 - transpires that subsequently on the same date i.e. 27.07.2011 learned counsel for the Bank approached the appellate authority and submitted that apart from the aforesaid amount there was further outstanding dues of Rs.2.5 lacs as amount of interest, cost of agent and cost of paper publication and the appellate authority directed the petitioners to pay that amount also. However, it was observed that if aggrieved with the said order the petitioners may file a review petition. 6. When the petitioners came to know about the said order they filed review case bearing R.A. No.09 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure-3) directing the petitioners to pay 60% amount of calculation supplied by the Bank on or before 21.11.2011 and the rest amount will be paid within one month thereafter and if the petitioners fail to deposit the said amount the sale may proceed in accordance with law and also in accordance with sale notice published in the daily newspaper on 20.10.2011. 7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid entire process and claim that when their review petition was pending against order dated 27.07.2011 there was no occasion for the authorities of the Bank to issue such a sale notice. Petitioners‟ counsel further submits that the order in review petition dated 15.11.2011 had been passed without considering the predicaments of the petitioners and the genuineness of their attitude as they had not disputed the amounts to be payable but was unable to pay it due to reasons beyond their control - 4 - including the marriage of daughter of petitioner no.1. 8. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners but from the impugned order dated 15.11.2011 it is quite apparent that the authority concerned had directed the petitioners to deposit 60% of the entire amount by 21.11.2011 and the rest amount within one month thereafter i.e. in the fourth week of December. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties including the materials on record, this court disposes of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to pay the entire amount including the amount of interest, cost of agent and cost of paper publication as per the claim of the Bank before the appellate authority on 27.07.2011 positively by 31st of December, 2011. Till then auction notice published in the daily newspaper „Hindustan‟ dated 20.10.2011 shall remain in abeyance. 10. It may be noted that if the aforesaid order is not complied by the petitioners within the prescribed time, the authorities will be at liberty to take steps for auction of the property in question and in addition to the aforesaid amount due, the petitioners will be liable to pay the additional amount of cost of publication and auction etc. which shall be realized from the auction sale of their property. 11. If the petitioners produce a copy of this order - 5 - before the Chief Manager (Compromise & SARFAESI), Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Resolution Branch, State Bank of India, Patna (respondent no.3) within one week from today, the said authority shall immediately provide the statements of account with respect to the amount dues plus interest etc. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)