IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8988 of 2007 Arun Kumar Mehta, Son of Late Ram Krishna Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Bhaisasoor, Post Office- Biharsharif, P.S.- Laheri, District- Nalanda. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 2. The State Bank of India, a Corporation in Corporates under the State Bank of India Act 1955; having its Central Office at Maldam CAma Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, having one of the Branch known as Biharsharif Branch, District- Nalanda. 3. Rajesh Kumar son of Gyanchand Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Bhaisasoor, P.S.- Lahari, District- Nalanda, at present resident of village- Khaneta, P.S.- Bela, District- Gaya. -Respondents. ----------- 12 24.04.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that about half of the premises in question have been physically repossessed by the bank. He has already undertaken to pay the entire dues irrespective of his share as noted by this Court in earlier order dated 19.09.2008. In fitness of things as Rajesh Kumar, Son of Gyanchand Prasad, respondent no. 3 in spite of notice has chosen to stay away from these proceedings. I direct as under:- “Bank should take possession of the entire building which stood mortgaged to the bank. Petitioner has paid more than what was the accrued arrears up to December 2008 and is ready and willing to pay the EMI of Rs. 6000/- per month, as fixed by the bank earlier. On petitioner’s giving an undertaking on affidavit to the bank that it would complete payment of the EMI, as above for the complete period, the bank would then convey and restore the possession of the entire building exclusively to the petitioner to the exclusion of respondent no. 3, who by virtue of all these obligations entered into by the petitioner 2 would now be left with no claim with the property. Once the entire dues of petitioner depositing the entire amount due either by virtue of EMI payments or consolidated payment before the last date, bank would then execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner alone in exercise of his powers under the SARFESI Act, which would only confirm the exclusive title of the petitioner”. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)