IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4510 of 2009. Date of Decision: 21st May, 2009. Anju Jain ....Petitioner through Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate Versus State Bank of Bikaner .Respondents through Mr. H.C.Gupta, Advocate. 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 5.2.2008 [Annexure P-1] whereby proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated and possession of the secured assets has been taken. On 23.3.2009, the petitioner made a statement that she is ready to pay the entire loan amount within a reasonable period. In order to show her bona-fide, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Two lacs with the respondent Bank and proceedings under the Act were stayed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides granting a period of one year to pay the balance amount of loan which is more than Rs. Five Lacs, the respondent Bank may be directed to remove its locks from the property and the possession may be restored to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondent Bank in the written statement, I am of the considered view that the possession of the property can be restored in favour of the petitioner only on payment of the entire dues. At the same time, the petitioner deserves to be granted some reasonable period to pay the balance loan amount and till then the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act are liable to be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may deposit the balance amount on or before 30.9.2009 or alternatively she may find out a prospective buyer who may be willing to pay the sale consideration, to the extent of loan liability, directly to the bank. In both the eventualities, the respondent Bank would obviously, on liquidation of the loan arrears, hand-over possession of the property to the petitioner forthwith. Till then the proceedings under the Act shall remain in abeyance. Disposed of. May 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE