IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4492 of 2009. Date of Decision: 20th April, 2009. Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner through Mr. N.K.Verma,Advocate Versus Indian Bank ...Respondent through Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 seeks a restraint order against taking of forcible possession of his residential house by the respondent Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, however, with an undertaking that he shall pay the entire loan amount within a period of six months. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has put in appearance. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,79,084/- as on 31.3.2009. Keeping in view the mitigating circumstances and the financial condition of the petitioner, I am inclined to grant him some reasonable period to make payment of the loan amount, especially when no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent Bank as it will continue to earn interest at the agreed rate. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. One Lac every month and clears all the dues before 31.10.2009, no coercive steps including taking of physical possession of the house, shall be taken against him. Disposed of. Dasti. April 20, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE