IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 726 of 2010 Date of decision : 06.01.2011 Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union Bank of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had approached this Court to impugn the intimation given to him on 12.01.2010 by the Bank that it is going to take possession of the assets in respect of Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Sushil Kumar. The petitioner, accordingly, filed this writ petition for quashing this communication as well as notice dated 23.10.2009 issued under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act). The petitioner had been issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act for discharging the liability. The petitioner claims that he had never availed the loan facilities. The stand of the petitioner is that the mortgage deed was forged. Be that as it may, the issue has now been finally settled between the parties. Counsel appearing for the Bank submits before the Court that the Bank has received full and final payment due and Civil Writ Petition No. 726 of 2010 -2- as such is left with no grievance. The Bank, thus, has no objection if the prayer made in the writ petition is allowed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed of his house is still lying with the Bank and, accordingly, the necessary direction be issued to the Bank to return the same. Counsel for the Bank says that the petitioner is at liberty to come to the Bank premises on any date convenient to him and the Bank would hand over the sale deed, which is lying in its possession. In view of the statement made above, the present writ petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. January 06, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE