IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16883 of 2009 1. CHANDRA BHUSHAN RAI S/O LATE MOHAN LAL RAI R/O MOHALLA- GANDHI NAGAR, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THROUGH IT MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BRANCH OFFICER, PATRAKAR NAGAR, PATNA 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SPECIAL ASSETS RECOVERY CELL, BUDHA COLONY, PATNA ----------- 05. 10.02.2010 A notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the petitioner has become the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application. Challenge to the said notice is based on two legal propositions raised in the writ application. The first objection is that already a certificate proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner and in view of the same a second proceeding for recovery of the dues under the SARFAESI Act is uncalled for. Two parallel proceedings cannot be maintained in the same set of facts. The other submission is that a civil suit was instituted by one M/S. A S Transport Limited in the court of Junior Civil Judge-1 of Chapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bank was a party. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The truck in question was auction sold for satisfaction of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Submission of the counsel is that the bank should have taken steps in the said suit to protect its 2 interest and the money recovered from the auction sale should have accrued in favour of the bank, but the bank allowed the opportunity to slip out of its hands and petitioner is the victim. Submission on behalf of the respondent bank is that there is no bar in maintaining both the proceedings. There is no impediment under the SARFAESI Act to take against the borrower and to that extent the first submission has not merit. The Court is in agreement with the respondents on this score because there is no decision on the issue that a certificate proceeding or a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act cannot be maintained simultaneously. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner also does not merit consideration because petitioner too was a party to the said suit. He was duly noticed but he too did not take any steps to defend his interest. If a decree in favour of the plaintiff i.e. M/S A S Transport Limited was issued under the hand and seal of the court and for the satisfaction of the decree, the truck had to be auction sold, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have assisted the court and resisted the order. To that extent there is failure on the part of the petitioner rather than the bank in this regard. In view of the above stated position, no 3 case is made out for interference with the notice under section 13(2). Petitioner has freedom to file objection against section 13(2) notice as well as to defend his interests under other provisions of the Act at the subsequent stage and not at this stage. The writ application is dismissed as misplaced and premature. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )