IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4853 of 2008 SRI UMESH PRASAD SINHA Versus THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK &ORS ----------- 3 13.8.2009 Heard Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Sujata Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner became guarantor for respondent no.4 and signed agreement to the aforesaid effect on 9.1.1998. But when he realized that he ought not to have become guarantor for respondent no.4, he filed an application on 10.1.1998 to the Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, S.S.I. Branch, Patna revoking his guarantorship. It appears that the Bank on 2.2.1998 sent a letter to the petitioner acknowledging his letter dated 10.1.1998. However, the aforesaid letter did not make any response to the plea of the petitioner withdrawing his guarantorship. In the meantime, the respondent no.4 defaulted in paying the loan amount and the same kept on mounting. The Bank as such filed O.A. No.60 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its loan. The Debts Recovery Tribunal by order dated 9.7.2002 passed exparte decree against the petitioner as well as the principal debtor. Thereafter the petitioner filed Misc. Case no.53 of 2002 for setting aside the exparte order. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 24.6.2004 set aside the exparte order dated 9.7.2002 with the condition that the petitioner should open a fixed deposit with the 2 decree holder Bank for Rs.4,00,000/- for a period of one year within 30 days thereof. The petitioner again defaulted in making the aforesaid deposit. He, however, filed M.A. No. 4 of 2004 for review of the order dated 24.6.2004. The aforesaid application too was dismissed due to non-presence of the counsel for the petitioner on 11.9.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed restoration application being M.A.No.65 of 2006 which is pending for adjudication. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner did not comply with the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and did not deposit the aforesaid amount and as such this writ petition be dismissed. She further submits that action is being contemplated against the principal borrower as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank is already proceeding against the principal debtor for recovery of its loan. It appears that the petitioner has filed restoration application being M.A.No.65 of 2006 for restoration of MA.No.4 of 2004 which is pending for adjudication. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court directs the petitioner to open a fixed deposit with the decree holder Bank for Rs.2,50,000/-. The first deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- must be made within two months from today and next deposit of Rs.50,000/- within a month thereafter. No coercive action would be taken against the petitioner if he deposits the aforesaid amount. 3 KHAN The order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in MA.No.53 of 2002 is modified to the extent indicated above. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)