IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17332 of 2010 REKHA DROLIA , W/O SHRI DINESH KUMAR DROLIA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.601-A, SHASHAI, PALACE, NALA ROAD, DISTRICT-PATNA……..PETITIONER. Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE SITUATED AT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CHANDER MUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, MAURYALOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, DISTRICT-PATNA 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CHIRAIYATAND BRANCH, DISTRICT-PATNA 4. SMT. KALAWATI DEVI, W/O SHRI DINESHWAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.13/A, RAJENDRA NAGAR, DISTRICT – PATNA 5. RAMDAS SAHU, S/O SHRI AYODHYA SAHU RESIDENT OF L.I.G., QR. NO.10/339, HAUNMANGAR, PANI TANKI, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. ……RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s S.D. Sanjay and Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the Bank : Mr. Ajit Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 04/ 01.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Central Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice of possession dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure-3) issued by the Assistant General Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India (respondent no.2) in exercise of power under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), whereby the respondents have claimed to have taken symbolic possession of the petitioner’s residential house/flat on account of the dues of loan 2 account standing in the name of Ramdas Sahu (respondent no.5), who had no concern with the petitioner either in the capacity of a surety and also for directing respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner which she had since the date of her purchase of the residential house by registered sale deed dated 05.02.2007 executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of respondent no.4 the original owner Kalawati Devi and also for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. 3. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition in order to avail the legal remedy available to him by way of filing a statutory appeal under the provision of section 17 of the Act. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 4. If such an appeal is filed within fifteen days from today before the appellate authority along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 5. If the petitioner wants any interim relief, she may file an interlocutory application before the appellate authority who shall decide the same immediately in accordance with law. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)