IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7229 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.04.2010 Raj Kumari ….Petitioner versus State Bank of India and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) The petitioner's plea is that she is prepared to make the payment in 2/3 months but the Bank is now taking steps under the SARFAESI Act for possession. If the petitioner is willing to make the payment to the financial institution, it shall always be open to the petitioner to approach the Bank and make the payment. If the petitioner seeks for rescheduling of the loan it is again a remedy which he shall avail without recourse to Court. The petitioner could have no help of this Court to obtain an extension for making any payment. The Court cannot monitor financial transaction between two parties where there is nothing shown on record that the action is being taken by the financial institution in violation of any other provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Civil Writ Petition No.7229 of 2010 - 2 - 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner states that there is a petition which is pending before the Bank. Even a petition which is pending shall be only considered by the Bank in the manner which is appropriate and which is contemplated by law. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.04.2010. sanjeev