JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral):- The petitioner is an agriculturist who took a loan from Punjab National Bank to buy a tractor for agricultural purposes. To secure repayment of the loan, he mortgaged his 75 Kanals of land to the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner defaulted in payment of equal monthly instalments. The loan became irregular and remained unpaid in part. In order to recover the loan amount, the bank filed an application under Section 8-A (1) of Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 for sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy the loan along with interest which at the time of filing of the application was to the tune of Rs. 8,73,350/-. The prescribed authority under the Act-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Safidon passed the following order on 7.8.2012 :- “File has been taken up. Today neither any one is present on behalf of the respondent nor he himself present before this Court. From the aforesaid fact it is clear that the respondent do not want to defend the present case. So, therefore respondent be proceeded exparte and exparte proceedings initiated against the respondent. Now the case is adjourned for 11.9.2012.” 2. After proceeding ex parte defendant, the prescribed authority passed the second impugned final order dated 11.9.2013 drawing up a decree in the aforesaid claimed amount in favour of the Bank. In case of non-payment, the bank was given the right to file an execution application after the expiry period of appeal. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prescribed authority did not issue notice to his client and proceeded ex parte in haste without effecting service on the petitioner. The final order has been passed ex parte. Reliance is placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. Union Bank of India; 2010 (3) RCR (Civil) 354 to contend that where notices are not issued as required by Section 8 of the Act, further proceedings are a nullity. It is his pleaded case that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the prescribed authority. It was only the bank who had determined the loan and issued notice for recovery, upon which, there was failure to discharge the loan. It is his pleaded case that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the prescribed authority. It was only the bank who had determined the loan and issued notice for recovery, upon which, there was failure to discharge the loan. The petitioner does not dispute the loan or the loan amount or that 75K odd of his property is mortgaged as security against the loan and is, therefore, open to be proceeded in the execution in due performance of the decree by issuing warrants of attachment. The petitioner says he came to know of the proceedings ex parte when the respondent bank entered upon the petitioner’s land to take possession. Since the loan is admitted and the petitioner appears to have a case on a technical flaw but which may have substantial repercussions, I deem it fit and appropriate that this matter should go back to the prescribed authority, i.e., SDO (Civil), Safidon for fresh decision. The petitioner would now appear before the prescribed authority on 25.3.2014. He would deposit half the decreed amount on the first date of hearing before the prescribed authority to be paid to the bank and for the remaining, he would have the right to respond to the notice and take such steps as are warranted by law. The prescribed authority would re-determine the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter within 3 months. 3. Disposed of with the above directions. ---------0.B.S.0------------