IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6064 of 2011 Decided on: August 1, 2011. Ravinder Singh. Vrs. Punjab National Bank & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i. To quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 7.7.2007. as contained at annexure P-6 supra and notice dated 11.9.2007 as contained at annexure P-10 supra; ii. To direct the respondent(s) 1 to 3 to satisfy the liability form the properties of the partner(s) of the respondent firm as they stood on the date of sanctioning of the limit to the respondent firm; iii. To set aside, quash and drop the impugned action for recovery under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 being taken by the respondents against the petitioner; iv. To direct the respondents not to invoke the guarantee of the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and further not to proceed against the petitioner under the provision of the act; v. To direct the respondent bank to release all the attached property of the petitioner (including his sole dwelling house); vi. To direct the respondents to consider one time settlement offered by the respondent firm for settlement of the entire liabilities vide their letter, dated 11.7.2007 as contained at annexure P-8 supra; vii. To direct the respondents to supply all the documents to the petitioner under the provision of RTI Act so that the petitioner can properly defend himself before the Ld. Debts Recovery Tribunal”. 2 2. Admittedly the proceedings before the DRT are pending. During the pendency of the proceedings only, the attachment has taken place. The petitioner submits that he may be permitted to continue to reside in the house subject to further orders by the DRT. This prayer, the petitioner has to make before the DRT, in which case, the DRT would consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, justice and equity. The petitioner submits that the matter is now posted before the DRT only in August. It is for the petitioner to move an application for urgent hearing in view of the emergent situation pointed out in the writ petition, in which case the DRT will take a decision in the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 1st August, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (vs/kck) Judge.