IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1767 of 2008 BIKRAMA SINGH Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS With MJC No.1770 of 2008 BIKRAMA SINGH Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS With MJC No.1785 of 2008 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS Versus BIKRAMA SINGH ---------- 7 22.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the earlier orders of this Court dated 3.9.2008, 17.9.2008 and 24.9.2008 respectively which would rather depict a very pitiable state of affairs which has been created solely at the instance of the petitioner. This impression would also be strengthened from the order of this Court dated 15.10.2008 by which the petitioner was asked to remain personally present. Today, the petitioner has appeared and has not only submitted supplementary affidavit offering his unconditional apology to this Court but also to Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, an officer of the Punjab National Bank. Such statement being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:- “2. That the petitioner tender unqualified apology from this Hon’ble court as well as 2 one Sri Mritunjay Kumar who is the official in the PNB for his act of giving false affidavit. 7. That in the aforesaid fact and circumstances the petitioner seek permission of this Hon’ble court to withdraw the statement made in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit swear by him. 8. That the petitioner once again seeks his unqualified apology by this Hon’ble court as well as Sri Mritunjay Kumar official of PNB.” In view of this unconditional apology followed by his seeking pardon in the open Court from the said officer, the matter as recorded in the order 15.10.2008 is hereby dropped. Coming now to the prayer made in the two modification applications being M.J.C. No. 1767/2008 & M.J.C. No. 1770/2008, all that has to be noticed is that now the petitioner, present in the Court in presence of his counsel, has himself given an unequivocal undertaking to this Court that he would clear the entire amount within a period of one year as per the policy of the Bank. It is on this clear undertaking of the petitioner that his prayer for modification of the order of this Court is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner must clear the entire outstanding amount of the Bank including interest on both the loan accounts within a period of one year 3 from today. For a period of one year i.e. till 22nd of October 2009, the Bank will not take any coercive steps as against the property but in fact if such payment is not made within a period of one year, the Bank will be definitely entitled to not only forfeit the amount deposited by the petitioner but also be entitled to take further action for sale of the house. At this stage, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has informed that the loan of the petitioner as on 26.8.2008 for both loan accounts was calculated by the Bank to be Rs. 30,22,613/- which may still increase in view of the passage of almost two months from the date of last calculation. He has also made it clear that as per the Banks policy and the B.P.L.R. scheme, the petitioner will be also liable to pay certain interest till the date of actual realization of the entire amount. This Court, for the moment, would direct the petitioner to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 30,22,613/- by the end of one year i.e. 22nd October, 2009 and in case the amount is paid, the Bank will also furnish the balance amount payable strictly in accordance with the Banks policy either on the head of interest on B.P.L.R. scheme or the increase of interest between 26.8.2008 to 22.10.2008 (today). 4 It is made clear that this is the last indulgence being given to the petitioner and no further indulgence will be admissible to the petitioner on any score whatsoever. In case the petitioner for any reason whatsoever does not pay the amount, the Bank will be absolutely at liberty to sell the house in question, whose possession in fact on paper had already been taken by the Bank. The petitioner infact had not been physically dispossessed from such house only because of the interim orders passed by this Court in those cases. In that view of the matter, this Court while giving indulgence to the petitioner for a period of one year would make it clear that the property in question is in the custody of the Court and after a period of one year, it will be the duty of the petitioner to file an affidavit in this court stating that he has cleared the loan of amount of Rs. 30,22,613/- when this court would consider the necessity of passing any further order on the communication made by the Bank for payment of additional interest of B.P.L.R. or the final amount for delay in payment. Thus it would be also open for the Bank to renew its prayer in M.J.C. No. 1785/2008 on or after 22.10.2009. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner has made an appeal to this court that if the Cash Credit 5 Limit (CCL) earlier being enjoyed by the petitioner is revived, it would be a great help to the petitioner in liquidating the loan amount. This Court would not like to express any opinion on the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner but would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in the Bank who should consider such grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, all these applications are disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)