IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9873 of 2007 KRISHNA KUMAR,ADVOCATE & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8 12.8.2008 Petitioners are the resident of Biharsharif in the district of Nalanda. They had taken a housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh in June 2003, from the respondent- State Bank of India, Biharsharif Branch. The said housing loan was to be repaid in 120 months (10 years) with an E.M.I of Rs. 6,650/- per month. It is not in dispute that the petitioners having made some initial repayment became chronic defaulters and the account became NPA. Petitioners having made no effort to either regularize the account or liquidate the debt, the respondent-Bank was left with no option but to proceed under SARFAESI Act having already filed a Money Suit being Money Suit No. 13 of 2007, pending in the Court of Sub Judge I, Biharsharif. Being threatened with action under the SARFAESI Act, petitioners moved this Court with a prayer that they are ready to make the entire default money along with accrued interest, if any, and on their doing so, the earlier agreement should be revived regularizing their account. On instruction, Bank, which is already filed a counter affidavit, took a stand that petitioners being defaulters and having violated the terms of agreement, the Bank was not in a position to accede to the request of the petitioners for restoring and reviving the - 2 - agreement. Having considered the matter this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. It may be noted that the petitioners by now have virtually paid of the amount in default. Bank has taken a fair stand that it is not interested in the property of the petitioners or selling the same. Its only interest is to secure repayment. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, I think that if the following under noted scheme is adhered to equity would stand a balance. This would not only enable the petitioners to make good the default but would enable the Bank to realize its dues punctually. As noted above, the loan had taken in June 2003, and was repayable up to August 2013. Now, the scheme to which the petitioners would be required to adhere under order of this Court is as under noted. As on 1st of August 2008, a balance would be struck in the loan account of the petitioners treating it to be note NPA account. This balance would show the total outstanding principal and interest liability if the petitioners as on that date. The petitioners would then be required to pay punctually within the first week of every month a sum of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) commencing from September, 2008. In this manner, the petitioners would be in a position to clear off the entire dues along with accruing interest within about three years - 3 - i.e. by the end of 2011. The payment, so made, would first being adjusted towards the interest due at the contractual rate for the previous month and the balance would be adjusted against the principal outstanding and without demur and undertakes that in case there is a default of payment of the aforesaid amount in full for two consecutive months, the Bank apart from initiating proceeding for contempt before this Court against the petitioners would be then free to proceed under SARFAESI Act for recovery of the entire outstanding balance. The petitioners would be intimated forthwith the balance outstanding in the account which he is to liquidate within the month of August itself by the respondent-Bank giving details of calculation in this regard. After the first monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) is paid in September 2008, as directed above, Bank would withdraw both the Civil Suits and all proceedings pending under the SARFAESI Act, as against the petitioners in relation to the present dispute. This, in my view, finally disposes of the writ petition. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the Bank. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)