IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12388 of 2010 ----------- Vijay Kumar Singh @ Bijay Kumar Singh, son of Sri Satya Narain Singh, resident of Muhalla College-Chown, Ward No.6/10, P.S. and District Madhepura. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chairman, Nabi Mumbai. 2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Region-4, Administrative Office, Purnea. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Madhepura. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s Aditya Sharan, P.K. Sharan and H.K.Sharan, Advocates ------ 03/ 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging possession notice dated 17.05.2010 issued by the Authorized Officer of the State Bank of India, by which he has taken possession of the property and also for restraining the respondents from selling the said property by auction as the petitioner wanted to pay the entire due amount and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Normally this Court would not have interfered in the matter as section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) provided a remedy by way of challenging the action taken under section 13(4) of the Act, but in the instant case a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 27.09.2010, in paragraph 18 of which it has 2 been stated as follows :- “ That the Bank is producing the statements of A/c, which the petitioner may be asked to clear, if the petitioner wants to save the property. A copy of Statement Account duly certified by the Bank is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A to this counter affidavit.” 4. From the said certified Statement of Account, it is quite apparent that the amount due is Rs.3,35,232.00 as per final calculation chart. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay the said amount within three months from today i.e. by 25th of July, 2011. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to honour his own undertaking by paying the aforesaid entire amount by the time mentioned above positively. Till then, the respondents shall not take any coercive action either against the petitioner or with regard to his premises. However, it may be noted that if the petitioner does not comply this order and does not pay the entire amount by the aforesaid date as per his own undertaking, the respondents shall be at liberty to take all coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the loan amount and apart from that the petitioner will also be liable to be proceeded against for violating the specific direction of this Court given on the undertaking of the petitioner himself. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )