IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3003 of 2011 1. M/s Bhagya Laxmi Sanitary & Paints through its proprietor Deepak Kumar, S/o Sri Mukhdeo Singh, Resident at A/203, P.C. Colony, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District/Town- Patna. 2. Bhagwan Das Mahto, S/o Late Dhanoo Mahto, R/o Mohalla- Mogalpura, Purani Chauki, P.S.-Khajkala, District-Patna. ……… Petitioners. Versus 1. The Central Bank of India, through its authorised officer, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. P.S.- Kotwali, District/Town-Patna. 2. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. P.S.-Kotwali, District/Town-Patna. 3. The Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Chiraiya Tand, Patna, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District/Town-Patna. ……… Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates. For the Bank : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 3. 01.04.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents-Central Bank of India and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging notice for sale by Tender-Cum-Auction dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure-2) issued by the authorized officer of the bank fixing 26.02.2011 as the date of auction. 3. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the averments of learned counsel for the parties and materials on record, it is quite apparent that a proceeding under the provision of the Securities And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was initiated by the authorities of the bank against the petitioners for recovery of the dues and in the said - 2 - proceeding notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners and finally on 16.09.2009 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) possession notice under section 13(4) of the Act was also sent to the petitioner by the authorities of the Bank. 4. It transpires that the matter was raised before t he Lok Adalat held in the premises of Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna on 22.02.2011 and looking into the totality of the circumstances, future litigation and also economic condition of the borrower, the account was settled on persuasion of the court for Rs. seven lakhs out of which Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid and out of the remaining Rs. 6.50 lakhs, rupees three lakhs was paid on the same day whereas rupees one lakh was to be deposited by 31.03.2011 and the remaining Rs. 2.50 lakhs was to be deposited by the petitioner in the Bank by 31.05.2011. The said order was passed by the Lok Adalat after both the parties compromised the matter on the aforesaid terms. 5. In the said circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to interfere into the matter as the issues involved have already been settled. 6. However, if the petitioners are unable to pay any of the instalments within time prescribed by the Lok Adalat, they will be at liberty to approach either the respondent bank and its authorities or the Lok Adalat for enhancement of time. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)