IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.32787 of 2010 Between: G.Kotinagulu and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Punjab National Bank rep. by its Authorised Officer/GPA holder Y.Durga Prasad .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.32787 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This writ petition is filed by the borrowers questioning the legality and validity of the action taken by the respondent-Bank in taking possession of the petitioners’ house property bearing No.4-9- 122/3/A/B constructed on Plot No.211 in S.No.337/8 & 9, 338, 348, 32.62.65 and 366 admeasuring 139.65 sq. yards situated at LIF HUDA colony, Attapur, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad, by issuing notices under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’), vide notice dated 21.12.2010 by the Advocate- Commissioner in Crl.M.P.No.3565 of 2010 dated 14.12.2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have regularly paid the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) towards loan as fixed by the respondent-Bank upto March 2010 and thereafter they could not remit the EMIs because of financial troubles and though they have orally informed the same to the respondent-Bank and requested for time to remit the EMIs the respondent-Bank issued demand notice dated 28.04.2010 directing them to pay the defaulted amount within sixty days but as the said notice was returned unclaimed the respondent- Bank has proceeded against them under the provisions of the Act and filed Crl.M.P.No.3565 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for taking physical possession of the house property and the said Court, by the orders impugned herein, has appointed the Advocate-Commissioner for taking possession of the property. 3. Heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent-Bank not to dispossess the petitioners from the house property in question on condition that the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent- Bank within a period of two weeks from today and clear off all the EMIs due to the respondent-Bank within 15th March 2011 and continue to pay the remaining EMIs as per the schedule. In default of any of the conditions stated supra, the respondent-Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 28th December 2010 CVRK