IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22644 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 20, 2010. Atma Ram and another .....Petitioners versus Punjab National Bank and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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 petitioners are aggrieved by the measures taken by the respondent-bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act') whereby possession of their residential house is said to have been taken. It appears that the petitioners are willing to pay a part of the loan amount followed by the payment of due installments in time. In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 26.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), I am of the considered view that the appropriate recourse for the petitioners would be to approach the Debt C.W.P.No .22644 of 2010 2 Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. It is however, directed that the petitioners' prayer for interim relief, namely, restoration of possession of the residential house to them, subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Tribunal may impose, shall be considered and disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of approaching the Tribunal. Let a copy of this order be issued dasti to the petitioners during the course of day. December 20, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE