Date : 25-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to pay the loan amount by way of installments, which his son has taken from the bank. He has also filed a title suit against his son.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank Patna High Court CWJC No.2032 of 2023 dt.25-04-2023 2/4 submits that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands. If he has filed title suit against his son, there is no occasion for his coming before this Court and stating that he shall repay the loan taken by his son, as there is apparently a dispute between the petitioner and his son. He has also not moved any application in the title suit for seeking any injunction relating to the property nor he has moved any application under Section 17 before the D.R.T.

4. I have considered the submissions. The Apex Court, in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu , reported in (2023) 2 SCC 168,. observed as under:-

5. In the case of South Indian Bank Ltd., & Ors., Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. , reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 435, the Apex Court has frowned upon the High Courts interfering in matters of commercial nature relating to a loner and loanee except in extra ordinary circumstances. Para 18 of the said judgment reads as under:

6. Keeping in view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in this case at this stage. However, if the petitioner approaches the DRT, the application shall be considered with an approach to get the matter sorted out as observed by the Supreme Court where it has stated that the DRT should dispose Patna High Court CWJC No.2032 of 2023 dt.25-04-2023 4/4 of the matters relating to loan by an approach as adopted in mediation proceedings.

7. Granting such liberty to the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Amrendra/-