JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-9-2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6556/2001, appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The case of the appellant as put forth in the petition is that on 9-4-1997 the scooter of the petitioner's husband Narain Prasad Nema was found near Dhuadhar Water Fall of Narmada River at Bheraghat, with a suicide note of her husband. However, in spite of rigorous search, the body of the petitioner's husband could not be found. A report regarding the incident was lodged at police station Bheraghat and Adhartal. Narayan Prasad Nema was an employee of the respondent/bank. The respondent bank on various occasions issued certain letters in the matter of disciplinary proceedings pending against N.P. Nema on the address of the appellant. In reply to various letters, petitioner informed the bank that Shri N.P. Nema is not traceable from 9-4-1997. Since appellant's husband was not traceable and as there was no earning member in the family, appellant and her family was facing great financial hardship. In the month of July 2001, appellant learnt that respondent/bank has filed a civil suit No. 7-A/2001 in the Court of 6th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur. The said civil suit was fixed in the last week of July 2001. The appellant obtained copy of the plaint. On perusal of the same, the petitioner learnt that her husband obtained a term loan of Rs. 1,77,000/- from respondent/bank which is required to be repaid with interest. It was further learnt from the copy of plaint that her husband did not repay the amount of term loan, accordingly the bank in the civil suit prayed for recovery of Rs. 2,16,509/-, including interest. When the appellant sought legal advice, she learnt that the Reserve Bank of India has framed a policy on 27-7-2000 whereby guidelines were issued for recovery of dues of public sector banks. In the aforesaid policy it was obligatory for the bank to inform the appellant regarding the policy so that she should repay the loan but no such information was sent to the petitioner. In the absence of knowledge of the said policy, petitioner could not avail the benefit of the same. Appellant preferred representation to the respondents for seeking the benefits of the policy. In the absence of knowledge of the said policy, petitioner could not avail the benefit of the same. Appellant preferred representation to the respondents for seeking the benefits of the policy. However, nothing was heard from the respondent and, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3490/2001. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent No. 2 shall take a decision in the matter. Thereafter the appellant submitted representation on 11-8-2001 to the respondents seeking the benefits of the scheme. This representation was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection of representation, appellant filed another Writ Petition No. 6565/2001 for direction to the respondents to settle the dues outstanding in the name of deceased N.P. Nema, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. By way of interim relief stay of the further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2001 pending in the Court of 6th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur was also sought. Combatting the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondents submitted the return stating therein that Shri N.P. Nema was working as Assistant Manager at Rewa branch of the respondent-bank. He was involved in fraudulent activities at various branches of the bank and extension counters of the branches. He was chargesheeted and suspended. In departmental enquiry he was found guilty and subsequently the respondent-bank terminated his services. Shri N.P. Nema by way of fraudulent transactions made unlawful gain to the tune of Rs. 4,42,404.00 and caused unlawful loss to the bank of the corresponding amount. The bank, in this respect has lodged a report with the Central Bureau of Investigation and the matter is under investigation before the C.B.I. Respondents further averred that Shri N.P. Nema had availed facility of house loan of Rs. 1,77,000/-, consumer loan of Rs. 5,000/- and festival loan of Rs. 4000/- from the bank and did not repay the instalments regularly, therefore, after serving a final demand notice, respondent-bank has filed a civil suit against him for recovery of Rs. 2,16,509/-. The 6th Addl. District Judge, decreed the suit on 30-11-2000 which was followed by a preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property. The judgment debtor did not pay the decretal amount within the time stipulated in the decree. The respondent bank applied for final decree for sale of mortgaged property. 2,16,509/-. The 6th Addl. District Judge, decreed the suit on 30-11-2000 which was followed by a preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property. The judgment debtor did not pay the decretal amount within the time stipulated in the decree. The respondent bank applied for final decree for sale of mortgaged property. The respondents further pleaded that as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, cases of wilful default and fraud were not covered under the scheme, therefore, compromise proposal given by the appellant was rejected. They also submitted that one time settlement scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India had come to an end on 30-6-2001. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage holding that petitioner was obliged to satisfy the civil Court that Shri N.P. Nema had died and the decree has been passed against the dead person and, therefore, the same was a nullity. It was also held that the disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in writ petition. Learned single Judge also observed that instead of raising objections before the Civil Court, appellant is challenging the decree of civil Court in an indirect manner. It is against this order of the learned single Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard Shri R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He contended that the respondent-bank extended the benefit of settlement of the dues under the aforesaid Reserve Bank of India guidelines to all defaulters against whom the suits were pending. The respondent-bank could not have denied the same benefit to the appellant. The action of the respondent-bank in not giving an offer of settlement to the appellant is not only mala fide but also discriminatory. Guidelines for recovery of dues relating to non-performing assets of public sector bank are contained in Annexure P.5. It provides in Para 3 clause (A)(1)(d) as under: The cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance will not be covered. According to the respondent/bank Shri N.P. Nema not only committed fraud and malfeasance but he was also a wilful defaulter. He did not pay the instalments in time, though he was a bank employee. Because the conduct of Shri Nema was not fair, therefore, it was not the obligation of the bank to compromise with him on the ground that the guidelines were issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He did not pay the instalments in time, though he was a bank employee. Because the conduct of Shri Nema was not fair, therefore, it was not the obligation of the bank to compromise with him on the ground that the guidelines were issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Moreover, compromise could have been entered into between the creditor and debtor only. It was not the obligation of the bank to inform the wife of Shri N.P. Nema to enter into compromise in accordance with the guidelines. The object of guidelines regarding compromise settlement of non-performing assets was to reduce the stock of chronic non performing assets and to help the defaulters who could not repay the loan, despite sincere efforts. The scheme apparently was not for wilful defaulters. The object was, the recovery of non-performing assets through the mechanism of compromise. Therefore, this Court cannot compell the bank to enter into compromise with a person who being the employee of the bank not only wilfully failed to pay the instalments of the loan granted to him but who is also alleged to have committed fraud with the bank. Learned counsel next submitted that in all certainties appellant's husband has died on 9-4-1997 and therefore, the decree passed against a dead person is a nullity. But then in our view the appellant was at liberty to raise such a plea before the Civil Court. Further, the appellant could not give any definite evidence to establish that her husband N.P. Nema has died on 9-4-1997 and simply because a suicide note was left by N.P. Nema it cannot at this stage be said that after preparing the suicide note, he actually committed suicide. There is no evidence that his dead body was found. The appellant herself reported the matter to the police station of Bheraghat and Adhartal that her husband is missing. In the absence of definite evidence that N.P. Nema had died on 9-4-1997, the case falls either u/s 107 or 108 of the Evidence Act. Section 107 of the Evidence Act provides that where the question is whether the man is alive or dead and it is shown that he was alive within 30 years, burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who confirms it. Section 107 of the Evidence Act provides that where the question is whether the man is alive or dead and it is shown that he was alive within 30 years, burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who confirms it. In this case admittedly Shri N.P. Nema was alive before 9-4-1997, therefore, burden of proving that he is dead lies on the appellant. There is a presumption in favour of continuance of human life. A person unheard off for the statutory period shall be presumed to be dead on expiry of 7 years and not earlier. As per appellant, N.P. Nema was in the contact of his wife and children on 9-4-1997 and has not been heard off since then; but as 7 years have not elapsed by now it cannot be presumed that he is dead simply for the fact that he had prepared a suicide note on the said date. It may not be ruled out that after preparation of the suicide note he might have dropped the idea of committing suicide. It is also possible that he prepared the suicide note to make the whole world particularly the respondent to feel that he is dead. There is no presumption as to date of death and according to section 108 of the Evidence Act, Court may not draw inference as to time of death of a person who has not been heard off for long but it is incumbent on the person who alleges that the person is dead to prove that fact by evidence. In the absence of convincing evidence, finding cannot be given in the writ petition that N. P. Nema is dead. Such disputed question of facts cannot be allowed to be raised and decided in the writ petition. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that the respondent/bank has not disputed the vital aspect of the death of N.P. Nema. This contention also cannot be accepted, the same being fallacious. Apparently, the respondent/bank has nowhere admitted that N.P. Nema is dead. Learned counsel for appellant lastly contended that the issue involved before the learned single judge was very limited and the validity of the decision of the respondent-bank regarding the rejection of the representation was only required to be seen. The learned single Judge has not given any finding on this issue. Learned counsel for appellant lastly contended that the issue involved before the learned single judge was very limited and the validity of the decision of the respondent-bank regarding the rejection of the representation was only required to be seen. The learned single Judge has not given any finding on this issue. Since the contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that the decree is against the dead person, the learned single Judge has held that "the entitlement of the petitioner with respect to the settlement in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines is subsequent step. Decree of Civil Court cannot be challenged by indirect method. First petitioner has to satisfy the Civil Court that N.P. Nema has died. The learned single Judge was right in dismissing the petition mainly on the ground that disputed question of fact as to whether N.P. Nema has died on 9-7-97 cannot be determined in the writ petition. The respondent-bank has also rightly rejected the representation of the appellant on the ground that N.P. Nema was a wilful defaulter and he also committed fraud and malfeasance. The revised guidelines of the R.B.I, were operative only upto 31-3-2001 and the writ petition was filed on 9-12-2001. Since the scheme has expired on 31-3-2001, appellant could not claim the benefit of scheme after its expiry. No other point was raised by the appellant in this appeal for consideration. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed in limine. Final Result : Dismissed