MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the present revision petition, the petitioners have impugned the order passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, who has declined the application filed by the petitioners for discharge of the liability arising out of loan as per one time settlement.

(2.) THE petitioners have taken loan for agriculture purpose, which, they could not repay statedly on account of some adverse circumstances in the family. This usually is the plight of a farmer, who is invariably a victim of vagaries of weather and is generally at a loss in the profession of agriculture. This problem is acute and had prompted the Government of India to come out with a scheme of loan waiver in favour of the farmers, which in itself would speak about the gravity of the situation in which the farmers in this country are placed. The Bank, obviously more concern with its recovery, filed a civil suit, which was decreed against the petitioners requiring them to pay Rs. 5,76,614.50Ps. Having obtained the decree, the Bank filed an execution application for recovery of the said amount. During the pendency of this application, the respondent Bank issued a letter dated 27.6.2007 granting some concessions to the loanees, if they opted for one time settlement. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the communication containing terms of settlement as Annexure P-1. In terms of the scheme on the basis of the instructions, issued by Reserve Bank of India, the petitioners were offered the following conditions as one time settlement :-

(3.) THE petitioners accordingly approached the Bank authorities with the request to accept 25% of the settled amount, i.e. Rs. 4,73,000/- as was mentioned in letter Annexure P-1, part of which is reproduced above. This letter, which is dated 27.6.2007, reached the petitioners on 30.6.2007, which was the time given for availing the benefit by moving the application. In this background, the petitioners have filed an application before the Executing Court on 25.8.2007 for allowing them to deposit the amount in terms of one time settlement communicated to them through letter dated 27.6.2007. In response, the Bank expressed its readiness to accept the amount subject to the decision from the Zonal Office and accordingly stated so in the reply, copy of which is at Annexure P-3. The court, however, still chose to decline the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the scheme was not in existence after 31.7.2007 and as such no order can be passed on this application. The petitioners have, thus, filed the present revision petition impugning the said order. No one has appeared on behalf of the Bank despite service.