IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12495 of 2011 Kalawati Devi W/O Sri Ram Gopal Prasad R/O Moh.- Purani Gurhatti, P.S.- Chpra Town, Distt.- Saran .….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Bank Of India Through Its Chief Managing Director Mumbai 2. The Chief Managing Director Central Bank Of India, Mumbai 3. The Divisional Manager Central Bank Of India, Muzaffarpur 4. The Regional Manager Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Siwan 5. The Authorized Officer Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, Siwan 6. The Branch Manager Central Bank Of India, Bhagwan Bazar Branch, Chapra, Distt.- Siwan 7. The District Magistrate Saran At Chapra …. Respondents ------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Arun Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocates For the Bank : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Dineshwar Tiwary, A.C. to S.C. 20 ------------ 03/ 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For quashing of the possession notice dated 09.07.2011 (Annexure 3) issued under the signature of respondent no.5, the Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Siwan whereby and whereunder the possession has been taken on paper of the petitioner’s residential house and the land situated at ward No. 2, Circle No. 4 holding No. 121/21, Area 11.5 dhurs, Sahebganj, Mohalla-Purani Gurhathi, Town & District-Chapra at Saran. (ii) For issuance of direction commanding the respondent Bank to produce all the notices and receipt thereof sent to the petitioner being mortgager and security holder of the credit account 2 for payment loan in case of defaulted by Beyahut Vastralaya. (iii) For issuance of direction commanding the respondent to make compromise and give her rebate in net payable amount/outstanding dues of the Bank and for fixation of instalments in the similar terms as has been given in the case of other such as M/s Priyadarshi Traders and M/s Moon Electronics and others, Sitamarhi (Annexure 7) by the respondent Bank, so that the petitioner may be able to clear the dues of the Bank and get rid of mortgage of her residential premises wherein she has been residing with her whole family from more than 45 years. (iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is deemed entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is an old lady suffering from several old age ailments and due to loss in business, her financial position has worsened and her family is not able to meet the day to day requirements from the income of her business. 4. The main point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that no demand notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) had ever been served upon the petitioner and all of a sudden a possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 09.07.2011, which was received by the petitioner on 12.07.2011, whereafter the said notice under section 13(4) was also 3 published in the newspaper on 15.07.2011. Hence he avers that no opportunity was given to her for raising any objection as required under the provision of section 13(3-A) of the Act. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, which is provided under section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal along with all the requisites as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today along with a copy of this order, the said authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. 6. It may be noted that if it is found to be true that no notice under section 13(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner then the matter has to start afresh from the stage of section 13(2) of the Act. 7. However, if the petitioner requires any interim order, she will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority for the said purpose, which shall be decided in accordance with law. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)