IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2870 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 26, 2010. Harvinder Jolly and another .....Petitioners versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Anuj Balyan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. -.- 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 action taken under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). It is alleged that the respondent-bank has obtained some orders from the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act also. Since one of the pleas taken on behalf of the petitioners was that a substantial part of the loan amount has already been paid and they are willing to pay the legally recoverable balance amount, if any, within a reasonable period, the respondents were also called for, who have filed their counter-affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. During the course of hearing, seriously disputed questions of facts including with regard to the actual amount of loan advanced to the C.W.P.No .2870 of 2009 2 petitioners as also the rate of interest have arisen which can be effectively adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal only. The petitioners would be at liberty to agitate these questions in an appropriate proceeding before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank states at the Bar that no objection regarding limitation shall be taken if the petitioners file such an Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the Act. It is directed that if the petitioners file an Appeal/Application within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the same on merits without entertaining any objection on limitation. Since the petitioners have already paid Rs.12,43,500/- to the respondent-bank and as noticed above, the total amount of the loan advanced to them is itself under dispute, it is directed that the petitioners' dispossession shall remain stayed and the subject house shall not be put to auction etc. till the matter is finally decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Dasti. November 26, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE