IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9098 of 2011 MOST. MEENA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE DINESH PRASAD YADAV @ DINESH KUMAR YADAV AT KUMHARAR, POLICE CHAUKI, P.O. LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA…………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK, MAURYA HOTEL COMPLEX, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEASE BANK, MAURYA HOTEL COMPLEX, PATNA. 3. THE M/S SUN ENGINEERING, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM AT G.S.RUKMANI CHAMBER NEAR BRINDAWAN NURSHING HOME, EXHIBTION ROAD, P.S. GANDHIMAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGER NAMELY AJAY KUMAR. 4. AJAY KUMAR SON OF GOURI SHANKER PRASAD, RESIDENT OF Q.NO.3, M.F., 8/5 BAHADURPUR HOUSING COLONY TOWER, P.S. AGAMKUA, DISTT. PATNA. 5. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE RAJKUMAR VERMA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SUN ENGINEERING AT G - S RUKMANI CHAMBER NEAR BRINDAWAN NURSHING HOME, EXHIBITION ROAD, P.S. GANDHIMAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA KHASMAHAL ROAD, P.S KANKERBAG DISTT. PATNA. 6. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA, DISTT. PATNA………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 15.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging orders dated 30.04.2010 and 27.04.2011 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in R.P. Case No.33 of 2006 by which the objection application under section 9 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) filed by the petitioner on 30.07.2008 and 06.10.2010 respectively had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed - 2 - that the said orders were passed without considering the case of the petitioner and were meant to cause immense loss to the petitioner without any fault. 4. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition in order to avail the opportunity of appeal provided under the Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdraw with the aforesaid liberty. However, if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner under section 30 of the Act before the said authority along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of the writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)