IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9666/2008 (Shree Shyam Finvest (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. SBBJ & Ors.) Date of order : 02.12.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not disputing the dues against him but he is made a request to settle the amount till 31.3.2009 vide Annexure-3. Thereafter, without consider the prayer of the petitioner, a notice was given to the petitioner Firm under Section 31 (2) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement and Security Interest Act, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, he has repeatedly made prayer for granting some breathing time to settle the amount but his representation for granting time was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.11.2008 on the ground that the prayer is on uncertain terms for the date and amount to be deposited. In this case, upon material available on record, it is obvious that the petitioner is ready to pay the dues but he is praying that some time may be granted. In my opinion, the purpose of the Bank is to recover the amount and not to crush the borrowers, therefore, the action of the Bank should be reasonable. In this view of the matter, the petitioner may file a fresh representation specifying the date for payment before the respondent – Bank within a period of one week from today. Upon filing the said representation, the Bank authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a period of fifteen days thereafter and grant some breathing time to the petitioner for depositing the outstanding amount. It is also made clear that remedy against the action of the respondents is available to the petitioner by way of filing appeal but before that it is expected that the Bank authorities will consider the prayer of the petitioner for depositing the amount within stipulated time. Further, it is made clear that till decision of the representation, no coercive action method shall be adopted against the petitioner – Firm for recovery. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.