IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12360 of 2011 Surya Deo Singh son of late Julumdhari Singh, resident of Mohalla- Shankar Sonar Lane, New Godown, P.S.-Jotwali, District-Gaya. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank Of India Home Finance Limited through its General Manager, 3rd Floor Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna. 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Home Finance Limited, 3rd Floor Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna. 3. The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Gaya Branch, Gaya. .......Respondents ----------- For Petitioner:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For Respondents:- Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. R.S. Vidyash, Adv. 03 23.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging possession notice dated 18.02.2011 issued by the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Gaya and also the demand notice dated 30.08.2010, issued by the said authority, by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1,96,192/-, which was taken as loan plus interest, as the said loan was taken by the petitioner on 09.11.1993, out of which the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 20,000/- as fixed deposit at the time of execution of the loan and had also deposited more than 10 instalments of Rs. 2,200/- each and the petitioner has been ready to pay the rest principle amount and in alternative prayed for one time settlement of the said amount also. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as from the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the account of the 2 petitioner had been declared as non-performing assets much earlier, whereafter notice dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure-9) was issued by the respondents to petitioner for payment of the aforesaid amount. Thereafter, the proceeding under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the shake of brevity) was initiated and the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-2) was sent to the petitioner. No objection under section 13 (3) of the Act was raised by the petitioner and hence the respondents issued possession notice dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1). 4. The said facts clearly show that the petitioner had not moved this Court either against the declaration of petitioner’s amount as N.P.A, nor he had come to this Court immediately after notices dated 04.08.2010 and 30.08.2010 claiming the proceeding to be illegal, rather he had chosen to wait until possession notice is given by the respondents to the petitioner. This Court does not find any special reason to consider the prayer of the petitioner as he has an adequate, efficacious and appropriate remedy under section 17 of the Act for filing an appeal, in which he could have raised all the points which he has taken in this writ petition. 5. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file an appeal. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order as well as all the 3 requisites and also along with an interlocutory application for condoning the delay within four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law expeditiously. Safik (S.N.Hussain, J.)