the OA, have been cancelled. Regarding other property, it is part of land measuring 32 kanal and the bank is claiming right over 24 kanal of land approximately, which is undivided amongst the other co-sharers. Accordingly, bank has no right to take physical possession of the property. On 30.09.2020, they had submitted restructure proposal to the bank. Again on 13.11.2020 they had written a letter to the bank stating that they may be allowed to job work. However, the bank did not consider the request of the defendants. After declaring the account NPA, they have deposited Rs. 2,27,56,568.33p. It is alleged that they had received summons from the court of Civil Judge, at Kathua in respect of the suit filed by Pankaj Sharma and Shri Virender Singh, who had executed lease deed dated 11.05.2016 for 20 years in favour of the defendants. It is alleged that by virtue of legal notice dated 25.10.2019, the lease has been terminated. Further, another suit has been filed by Smt. Sheetal Sambyal and Smt. Bandhana Thakur stating that they are owners of two pieces of land measuring 3 kanal 14 marlas and 3 kanal 12 marlas, owned by defendant No.1/company. Vide order dated 05.04.2021, which was served on 10.04.2021, the Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. It is allege that defendant No.1 is a MSME unit. On 27.04.2021, they had submitted revised proposal for restructuring to the bank. However, the bank rejected the same, without passing any speaking order. Further, the bank also did not follow the guidelines of RBI, dated 11.02.2020 and again the Government of India guidelines, dated 24.06.2020; 06.08.2020 and 05.05.2021. It is alleged that on 02.01.2020, the bank issued the notice under Section 13(2). It is alleged that bank did not classify the account from SMA-0 to SMA-2 on account of temporary deficiency and straightway declared the account NPA. It is also alleged the present OA is barred by limitation. Bank had got executed blank documents from the defendants. The defendants
