JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 4.8.2009 as contained in Annexure-5, issued by the Manager, Central Bank of India, Bikramganj Branch whereby outstanding balance of Rs. 17,19,177/- has been shown in cash credit A/c No. 117 of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted cash credit loan of Rs. 5 lacs on 27.1.1998. Subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 10 lacs. As the petitioner sustained loss and could not repay the loan of the bank the respondent Bank filed O.A. No. 64/01 in the court of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for a certificate of Rs. 17,36,860/- as on 31.8.2001 with interest at the rate of 18.25%. The suit was decreed ex parte. The petitioner filed Misc. application under Section 22(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 being M.A. No. 54 of 2002. The said application was not allowed. Then the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 9673/06. 2. This Court by order dated 30.8.2006 disposed of the writ application in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties which is being quoted hereinbelow:- "In compliance to order dated 28.8.2006, an affidavit being undertaking has been filed on behalf of Shri Jai Mangal Prasad, the proprietor of M/s Govind Hosiery Stores, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. He has undertaken to settle the loan account of Rs. 15,79,389/- as proposed by the Bank in its counter affidavit. He has undertaken to pay 25% of the said amount to the Bank within ten days from today. The balance amount he has undertaken to pay within three years with simple interest at PLR+3% per annum on reducing balance basis. This is in consonance with the terms set out by the Bank in its counter affidavit." 3. Thereafter the petitioner deposited Rs. 4 lacs within the time prescribed by this Court which was 25% of the due amount. 4. It is a case of the petitioner that when he asked for the statement of Account of his cash and credit A/c No. 117, he was supplied the chart of the said A/c from which it appears that outstanding balance was shown as Rs. 100/- only on 30.7.2009. As such the petitioner paid Rs. 100/- on 31.7.2009. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon Annexures-2 and 4 of the writ application. 5. 100/- only on 30.7.2009. As such the petitioner paid Rs. 100/- on 31.7.2009. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon Annexures-2 and 4 of the writ application. 5. The petitioner states that he was surprised to see letter dated 4.8.2009 whereby the amount due against him has been shown as of Rs. 17,19,177/-. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the bank, states that the petitioner did not make any payment after depositing Rs. 4 lacs on 4.9.2006. He states that when repayment does not come, balance is shown closed. This merely reflects the internal transfer and does not reflect that the debtor has repaid the loan. 7. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit balance amount after due settlement of the A/c. 8. In the circumstance, this Court remits the matter back to the Zonal Manager to settle the dispute regarding rate of interest and decide the amount due against the petitioner and if possible to arrive at a settlement for repayment of the loan. If the petitioner still fails to repay the loan amount, the respondents may proceed in accordance with law. 9. No coercive step would be taken against the petitioner for three weeks. 10. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is disposed of.