DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH SA 61/2020 JEET SINGH VS. SBI 06.11.2020 Item No.1 Present: Adv. Satish Jaiswal, Counsel for the Applicant (present in person). None for the respondent bank. This is fresh SA filed by the counsel for applicant. The counsel for applicant has stated that in this case bank has not taken symbolic possession by serving 13(4) notice and now going to initiate an action for taking physical possession of the property through DM. The borrower gets a cause of action to file SA when bank adopts any measure under Section 13(4), one of the measure under Section 13(4) is taking possession of the property. Possession is of two kinds: symbolic possession & physical possession. Unless and until borrower loses possession either symbolic or physical he does not get any cause of action to file SA. This principle has been propounded by the Honble Supreme Court in Nobel Kumar vs. Standard Chartered Bank case that unless and until borrower loses possession, he does not get any cause of action to file SA under Section 17. In the case in hand bank has yet to take possession & borrower has not lost either symbolic or physical possession therefore in the light of above mentioned judgment this SA is premature and no cause of action is accrued in favour of borrower to file this SA. Therefore the SA deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismiss. The counsel for the applicant stated that applicant is ready to compromise this case with the bank which he is free to do so. Therefore the SA stands dismiss as being premature. File be consign to record room. (Sanjeev Mago) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh (Additional Charge) Rahul 06.11.2020