IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11464 of 2011 Date of Decision.06.07.2011 Karambir Singh s/o Sh. Parma Nand r/o House No.2368, HIG-L, Sector 3, Housing Board Kurukshetra ......Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the action taken by the respondent-Bank through notice under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner's contention is that after the service of notice under Section 13(2), the petitioner has paid Rs.65,000/- and according to him, the liability is in the range of Rs.1.5 lacs and if he is granted sufficient time, he will be prepared to pay the whole loan and discharged the same. 2. It is not the duty of Court to reschedule the loan or to find what is convenient for the petitioner to make the payment. 3. The writ petition is meaningless and it is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance in the manner known to law. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 06, 2011 Pankaj*