Rohit Kumar Sahu And ANR v. State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12833 of 2012 ===========================================================

1. Rohit Kumar Sahu, Son Of Late Raghunath Prasad Sahu, resident of Rajendra Prasad Lane, Opposite Uma Market, Town Thana Gumti, Mohalla- Motijheel, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur

2. Kiran Kumari Sahu, wife of Sri Rohit Kumar Sahu, resident of Rajendra Prasad Lane, Opposite Uma Market, Town Thana Gumti, Mohalla- Motijheel, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. State Bank of India, through its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Club Road, Muzaffarpur

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Club Road, Muzaffarpur

3. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARB, Zonal Office, Club Road, Muzaffarpur

4. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, SARC Office, Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur

5. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SARB, Administrative Office, Club Road, Muzaffarpur

6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mithanpura Branch, Mithanpura, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee Mr. Nazir Ansari, Advocates For the Respondent-Bank: Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Mr. Amit Singh, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-07-2016 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the auction notice, so far it relates to the petitioners, published by the Respondent Bank on 29.06.2012 in the Hindi Daily Newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" notifying that the immovable properties belonging to these petitioners shall be auctioned on 9th August 2012; and for connected reliefs.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12833 of 2012 dt.05-07-2016 2/2 disputes have now been resolved and the matter has amicably been settled between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the grievances of the petitioners have thus been redressed.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid stand of the parties, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 11.07.2016 Transmission Date N/A