IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18280 of 2011 Motilal Keshri S/O Late K.S. Keshri Resident of Mohalla-Abarpul, Waliganj, P.S. Ara, Distt.-Bhojpur. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Zonal Manager Punjab National Bank, Patna. 2. The Regional Manager Punjab Nation Bank, Ara Bhojpur. 3. The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Station Road, Branch, Ara, Distt.-Bhojpur. 4. Authorised Officer Punjab National Bank (Secured Creditor) Station Road, Ara, Bhojpur. … Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjab, S.C.-PNB -------- 06/ 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order and sale notice dated 16.09.2011, issued by the Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Bhojpur. 3. Claim of the petitioner is that without issuing notices under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of 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), the impugned sale notice had been issued inspite of the fact that a judicial proceeding bearing Misc. Case No. 15 of 2008 is pending before the Subordinate Judge-II, Ara with respect to the same matter. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the loan was credited by respondent-Bank in favour of the petitioner in the year 1987-88 and Title Mortgage Suit No. 23 of 1999 was filed by 2 respondent-Bank for recovery of the amount payable from the secured assets. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 22.10.2008 and since the petitioner claimed that he had no information about the said suit, he filed Misc. Case No. 15 of 2008 under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as `the Code’ for the sake of brevity) on 12.12.2008 for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is also not in dispute that respondent-Bank has also appeared in the case, which is still pending although about three years have lapsed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Bank and its authorities states that they had issued demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act as far back as on 01.11.2008 and sent it to the petitioner by both processes including registered post, for proving which he had produced a registration receipt. He also claimed that thereafter the respondents issued possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act on 09.01.2009 and got it published in the news-paper also, but since neither any objection against the notice under section 13(2) nor any appeal against notice under section 13(4) of the Act was filed by the petitioner, the impugned sale notice has been issued. He further submits that no further step has been taken in furtherance of the aforesaid sale notice. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that against the ex parte decree dated 22.10.2008 passed in Title Mortgage Suit No. 23 of 1999, the petitioner had filed Misc. Case No. 15 of 2008 under Order IX of the Code on 12.12.2008 and hence the notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 01.11.2008 i.e. much before filing of the miscellaneous 3 case, which followed the subsequent notice under section 13(4)of the Act on 09.01.2009. 7. Although the petitioner has claimed that no action should be taken against him during the pendency of the miscellaneous case, but since no interim order has been passed in the miscellaneous case restraining the authorities from taking any action against the petitioner under the Act, the steps taken by the authorities concerned cannot be affected due to the pendency of the said miscellaneous case. 8. Furthermore the petitioner has specifically claimed that he had not received any such notice either under section 13(2) of the Act or under section 13(4) of the Act nor he had any information that any proceeding under the Act has been initiated against him. But the respondents had filed registration slip showing that the said notice under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner by registered post also, whereas, the notice sent under section 13(4) of the Act was claimed to have been refused by the petitioner and it was published. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances and the claims of the contesting parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the possession notice issued by the respondents under section 13(4) of the Act. If such an appeal is filed along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay within fifteen days from today, the authority concerned shall consider the delay caused due to predicaments of the petitioner and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. The petitioner will also 4 be at liberty to file an interlocutory application, if he wants any interim order, with respect to sale notice, which, if filed, shall also be decided by the authority concerned without delay. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)