- (1.) THE prayer of the Petitioner is to quash the demand citation dated 28-8-1995 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil Meja as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition at the behest of Respondent No. 2, Bank of Baroda, Branch Bharatganj which has been sued through its Manager.
(2.) A perusal of Annexure-2 reveals that a sum of Rs. 14002/- was remained to be paid towards instalments by the petitioner and thus, he was asked to pay the same and appear before Respondent No. 3 on 4-94995 failing which steps can be taken for his arrest, attachment of his properties and their auction. Annexure-1 is a copy of the letter dated 11-8-1995 written by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 asserting, inter alia, that he had never taken any loan nor was he given any loan by the Bank, but having learnt of the steps taken by Tehsildar, he is requesting for considering the entire mat ter seriously, as there appears to be some fraud played on him and to take action against such persons who are responsible for the fraud in robing him stating these fact elaborately in this writ petition. When this writ petition was placed before a Division Bench on 16-10-1995, it passed the following order: "apart from the fact that the petitioner Ram Lakhan has seriously challenged the genuineness of the entire loan proceeding in cluding his signature on various documents relating to the alleged grant of loan by Bank of Baroda, Bharatganj, Allahabad, he has placed his poverty as also inability to pay of the alleged sum of Rs. 14002/- sought to be realised from him by citation dated 28-8-95. During the course of argument Shri Sheo Shankar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) which he will collect by any mode, borrow or steal and counter-affidavit may be called with reference to the specific pleading regarding genuineness of t he loan proceedings. Shri C. P. Mishra, learned Counsel has ac cepted notice ;on behalf of Bank of Baroda, Bharatganj, Meja. Shri Ram Lai, learned stand ing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 3. They pray for and are granted two weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder af fidavit may be filed within a week thereafter. If the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) on or before 31st October, 1995, realisation proceed ings including coercive measures shall remain stayed till 11th November, 1995. The stay order will stand vacated if the said deposit is not made. List this writ petition for admission/final disposal in the week commencing 30th October, 1995. Sd/-Palokbasu,j, Sd/-D. C. Srivastava,j. "
(3.) NO counter affidavit has been filed despite expiry of three years and ten months by now, by Respondent NO. 2, on whose behalf notice was accepted by Shri C. P. Mishra, its learned Counsel. Sri Sheo Shankar Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner con tended that categorical statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition that he had never taken any loan from the Respondent No. 2,. in absence of any counter-affidavit, may be accepted and the desired relief be granted. The sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order be also directed to be returned to him forthwith along with interest.;