IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.521 of 2008 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS Versus KANIHYA LAL ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 15th July, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of 75 days. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal for which an interlocutory application (IA No.4051 of 2008) has been made, we find that the appeal has no merit at all and it does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The single judge noticed the following facts: “As petitioner was pursuing the insurance claim which was to accrue to the Bank, the Certificate Court directed the petitioner to pay the difference of the two that is the certificate amount as assessed and the insurance claim. Bank did not object to this order dated 10.02.2000 which attained finality. Thereafter, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Petitioner then approached the District Consumer Forum where again his claim was not accepted and petitioner has now filed an appeal before the State Commission for Redressal of Consumer Dispute which is pending. As the consumer Forum dismissed the claim of the petitioner as against the Insurance Company, the petitioner then moved the Certificate Court for permission to deposit the entire amount and the 2 permission was granted by order dated 10.09.2007 of the Certificate Court. Bank filed a review application which was rejected and then have now gone an appeal before the Collector of the district against the order of the Certificate Court dated 02.11.2007 being Appeal No.2 of 2007. Admittedly, there is no appeal against the original order passed in the year 2000 determining the liability. That order has attained finality and binds both Bank and the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner is that ignoring the said order Bank cannot move under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) for recovery of its dues. Once Bank had a statutory remedy and it availed it and let it attain finality, having thus taken the remedy to its conclusion its result cannot be discarded or ignored and proceedings afresh started under SARFAESI Act.” The aforesaid facts have not been controverted or disputed by the counsel for the appellants. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the view of the single judge cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. The letters patent appeal stands dismissed in limine. This disposes of IA No.4051 of 2008 as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Neyaz/- Kishore K. Mandal, J. 3