IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23032 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 22, 2010. Prem Sagar .....Petitioner versus Punjab National Bank .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved at the action taken by the respondent-bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. C.W.P.No .23032 of 2010 2 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed by relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner's only residential house has been taken in possession, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the prayer of the petitioner for ad-interim relief preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such an application. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 22, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE