IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10766 of 2009 1. MD.TAIYAB, SON OF LATE ABDUL GAFFAR 2. SMT. HAMIDA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. TAIYAB, BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – NEW COLONY SADPURA, P.O. – RAMNA, P.S. – MITHANPURA, TOWN AND DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. …………….. PETITIOENRS Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROGUH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, MOTIJHEEL BRANCH, MUZAFFARPUR, P. O. AND DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MOTIJHEEL BRANCH, P.O. - & DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. 3. SRI R.K. OJHA, REGIONAL OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MOTIJHEEL BRANCH, P.O. & DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. …………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 02/- 28.08.2009 The petitioners stood guarantor for one Satvindar Singh, who took cash credit facility from the Central Bank of Indian, Muzaffarpur in the year 2002. The petitioners claim to have revoked the aforesaid guarantee. A copy of the letter of revocation dated 09.04.2002 is annexed as Annexure – 1. The petitioners state that the Bank never informed him that he is not aware of the transaction going on between Bank and the principal borrower. He further submits that the Bank also filed a Certificate Case under PDR Act in which the petitioners have filed his objection under Section 9 which 2 is still pending. Learned counsel submits that without serving any notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent bank proceeded against them. Consequently they filed an Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being Appeal No. 12 of 2007. He submits that unfortunately DRT rejected their appeal without taking into consideration the settled position of law that without due service of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the Bank cannot legally proceed against anyone. He submits that the Bank should have first proceeded against the principal borrower. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioners should have moved the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. This Court grants liberty to the petitioner do so. No coercive action would be taken against the petitioners for five weeks. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)