High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kunwarpal Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 67981 of 2005  RD-AH 6147 (22 November 2005)
Hon. S. K. Singh, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the impugned notice dated 24.12.2003 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). This notice was given by the counsel of the bank requiring the petitioner to pay the amount. Be as it may, as no citation was annexed with the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to obtain the same from the concerned Tehsil upon which citation dated 4.6.2005 was issued which is filed along with the supplementary affidavit from which it is clear that an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- plus interest is said to be payable by the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel who appeared for the respondent bank. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner took loan in the year 1996 to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and now on account of default recovery proceeding has been started. There is averment in para 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh but admittedly no receipt has been filed on the pretext that they are lost in the fire. Be as it may, the record of the bank cannot be said to have been lost in any situation and, therefore, some proof in respect to the deposit could have been placed before this Court, which has not been done and, therefore, prima facie this Court is not able to accept the correctness of that averment.
Be as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner came with the prayer that petitioner may be allowed six months time to deposit the required amount, upon which this Court observed that as the time schedule provided by the bank is already over only breathing time can be given to make the payment then learned counsel submits that at least three months may be allowed for depositing the amount.
This Court considered the matter. There is no dispute that about nine years has already passed from the date when the loan was taken. Normally the maximum period as given by the bank for paying the entire amount is nine years as this court experienced in large number of cases. Thus the time provided by the respondent bank to pay the amount is already over. This Court normally grants some time to a petitioner for making the deposit in certain instalments where the time allowed by the bank is not over and default occasioned but in the case where time is already over, this Court is not to enlarge the period within which loan amount was to be paid to the bank. Grant of time taking sympathetic view is only with an intention that agriculturist may not suffer on account of auction of his moveable/immoveable properties and thus with that intention petitioner at the most can be given some breathing time for making the payment if time schedule of bank is already over and if petitioner is able to manage the amount he may save himself from injury which petitioner claims on account coercive process and if he cannot, he has to suffer.
Learned counsel at this stage submits that less than three months will not be reasonable and sufficient for the petitioner for managing the amount. After considering the facts as noted above, this Court declines to accept the petitioner's prayer for grant of three months time.
For the reasons recorded above this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.