IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8133 of 2010 RAMESHWAR NATH PATHAK S/O RAM PUJAN PATHAK R/O MOHALLA- SHEOPURI, WARD NO.- 10, P.S.- BUXAR (TOWN), DISTT.- BUXAR…………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 3. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA…………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate. For the Bank : M/s Aditya Sharan, Prabhat Sharan and Hemant Kr. Sharan, Advocates. 07/ 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging possession notice dated 10.12.2009 issued by respondent State Bank of India under the provision of section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for directing the respondents not to take possession/sale of the mortgaged property and for not to take any coercive step against the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had taken loan for construction of house but being a poor person and unable to collect the required money, could not pay the installments as required and hence his mortgaged properties were declared to be NPA assets in which NPA amount was given as Rs.2,56,152.59. He further submits that thereafter notice under section 13(4) of the Act was issued by the respondents on 10.12.2009 for the said amount plus interest. - 2 - Against the said notice, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the assets were declared NPA much earlier, whereafter demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued thereafter possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act has also been issued. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the loan taken by the petitioner has not been returned within the time prescribed nor any installment has been paid as per the agreement between the parties and hence the respondents had no option but to take the necessary steps under the provisions of the Act as it had to see the interest of other persons also who were interested in taking loan for starting their work. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that huge amount is due against the petitioner and he is unable to pay the same in near future. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned notice under section 13(4) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order along with the requisites and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the case on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)