IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16784 of 2010 Brij Kishore Prasad, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of Dhurlakh House, Bhanwar Pokhar, Patna-800004. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna through its Presiding Officer, 34, Bank Road Patna-800 001. 3. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 34, Bank Road Patna-800 001. 4. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Tulsiani Chamber, 1st Floor West Wing, Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, 400 021. 5. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 6. The General Manager, S.B.I. Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 7. The Assistant General Manager, Industrial Finance Branch, Nageshwar Colony, Patna. 8. The Assistant General Manager, SAMB Branch, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 9. The Assistant General Manager, S.B.I., Boring Road Branch, Patna. 10. The Deputy General Manager, SAMB Branch, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 11. The Assistant General Manager, Rehabilitation and Recovery Branch, Gandhi Maidan, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Prakash Sahay & Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Bank : M/s. Aditya Sharan & Prabhat Kumar Sharan, Advocates. For the Union of India : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, C.G.C. ------- 04/ 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging orders dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure-1 and 1/A) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna as well as notice dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure-7) by which the liability of repayment of loan amount has been imposed upon the petitioner as the - 2 - mortgagor/ guarantor and also for directing the respondent-Bank to release the petitioner’s property from mortgage and return the title deed of the property to the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is quite apparent that the said orders have been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity). Against such an order appeal is provided before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act as well as a review is provided before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. 4. Facing the aforesaid provisions of law, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition to file a review under Rule 5A of the Rules before the Tribunal, as according to him, there are errors apparent on the face of record and there are materials to show the legality of the petitioner’s claim which have not been considered by the said authority. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition under Rule 5A of the Rules. If such a review petition is filed before the said authority within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the Tribunal shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the - 3 - review petition on merit in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such a review petition. 6. If the petitioner wants to seek any interim order, he may file an interlocutory application before the Tribunal which shall be considered and disposed of immediately. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)