IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 21139 of 2008. Date of Decision: 16th March, 2009. Rakesh Kumar Chadda ..Petitioner through Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate Versus Punjab National Bank ...Respondent through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 19.11.2008 [Annexure P-4] issued under Section 13[4] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002. It may be mentioned that the petitioner and his wife have taken housing loan of Rs.13 lacs from the respondent Bank on 13.8.2004. They having defaulted in payment of the due installments, their loan account was declared NPA and proceedings under Section 13 of the Act were initiated. Vide the impugned notice dated 19.11.2008 issued under Section 13[4] of the Act, they have been directed to deliver possession of the secured asset, namely, the same residential house. Aggrieved, they have approached this Court. On 17.12.2008, the Motion Bench passed the following order:- “The petitioner is aggrieved by notice under Section 13[4] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that entire defaulted amount will be paid within 15 days from today. Notice of motion for 27.2.2009. In view of above, the Bank may not proceed against the property of the petitioner till further orders. It is made clear that if the Bank is satisfied with the payment made by the petitioner, it need not appear in this Court”. As per the office report, service is complete. No one, however, appeared on behalf of the respondent Bank on 27.2.2009. Position is no different even today. Learned counsel states that even before passing of the order dated 17.12.2008, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 13.12.2008, followed by another payment of Rs.50,000/- on 5.1.2009. It is stated that “the entire defaulted amount” has thus been paid. Learned counsel also undertakes that the petitioner shall continue to pay the monthly installments regularly. In this view of the matter, when the plea taken by the petitioner has remained un-rebutted, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned notice dated 19.11.2008 is hereby quashed and the respondent Bank is directed to regularize the petitioner's account, subject to the condition that the petitioner or his co-borrower shall continue to pay the installments regularly. It is made clear that in the event of any default by the petitioner, the respondent-Bank shall be entitled to proceed against them from the stage as it was before issuance of the impugned notice dated 19.11.2008. Disposed of. March 16, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE