1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 19th Dec., 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme (Annex.3) issued in pursuance of the RBI circular dated 3rd Sept., 2005 to give benefits of one time settlement to the small and medium enterprises accounts holders. The learned Single Bench has observed that petitioner's case is not covered under the scheme because the scheme was issued subsequently by the RBI and subsequent to passing of the judgment and decree against the petitioner by the civil court.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellant the appellant to take benefit under the scheme (Annex.3) applied before the respondent-bank by moving application (Annex.1) wherein the petitioner very clearly stated that the loan was taken and a recovery suit was filed by the respondent-bank and in that suit the decree was passed against the petitioner for Rs.6,61,550.89 paisa by the court of District Judge, Pali and she is prepared to fulfill all conditions of the scheme and tendered a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/-. The application is dated 8.2.2006. The petitioner's said application was rejected by the respondentbank vide communication dated 22nd July, 2006. The only ground given for rejection of the petitioner's proposal was that since the civil court has passed the decree in favour of the bank, therefore, she is not eligible to be considered under the said scheme.

4. Learned counsel pointed out that the policy clearly provides even adjustment of the amount against the decree by making specific provision under sub-clause (3) of clause 3.4 and the sub-clause (5) under clause 3.4 has been misconstrued by the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that scheme was for limited period and that period has already expired. It is also submitted that the petitioner applied after the expiry of period and, therefore, her application was rightly rejected. It is also submitted that after passing of the decree, the benefit of scheme is not available to the persons who already suffered the decree. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Punjab & Harayan High Court delivered in the case of Knittex Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of Patiala & Ors reported in AIR 2008 Punjab & Haryana 59 wherein it has been held that the one time settlement scheme issued by the RBI is having no statutory force and such scheme do not confer any statutory right on borrower to seek their enforcement by issuance of writ of mandamus nor it create corresponding legal duty on financial institution. Same view was taken by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case delivered in Bharat Bhushan v. State Bank of India & Anr reported in II (2008) BC 530 (DB).

6. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the scheme as well as the impugned order. The scheme for one time settlement was formed in pursuance of the RBI's circular dated 3rd Sept., 2005. As per this scheme, the scheme is applicable to all those accounts which are declared as non-performing Assets (NPA) of Public Sector Banks. The outer limit of the account is Rs.10.00 crores for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME). The applicants could have moved application for getting the benefit upto 31st March, 2006. It is also provided that the proceedings under the revised guideline should be completed by 31st June, 2006. The sub-clause (b) of clause (2) provides that guideline also cover NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31st March, 2004, which have subsequently become doubtful or loss will also be covered.

7. Sub-clause (3) of clause 3.4 is as under:-

"....After repayment of the settlement amount as per the scheme, the suit(s) pending in the court/decree(s) awarded/Recovery Certificate Account(s) will be treated as satisfied and necessary steps