Through Chief Manager P.n. Meena v. Usa Through Power Of Attorney Holder

Judgment

1. Raju Prakash Calla Son Of Shri P.c. Calla, Aged About 62 Years, R/o -10, Amelia Dr, North Chelmsford, Ma 01863 Usa Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Munish Kumar Sapra.

Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Bharat Singh Son Of Arjun Singh, R/o Gadhi Khanpur, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Dist. Sikar, Rajasthan.

3. Deputy Commissioner And Authorised Officer, Zone-5, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

4. Jaipur Development Authority Through Commissioner, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, India Circle J.l.n Marg, Jaipur.

6. Collectorate Jaipur, Collectorate Office, Collectorate Jaipur. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Office Collectorate Jaipur. ----Respondents/Defendant Nos.1 to 5 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjiv Arora, Adv. Mr. Shubham Arora, Adv. Mr. R. B. Sharma Ganthola, Adv. Mr. Manvindra Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 11/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.6 (for short ‘the defendant-Bank’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Additional [2025:RJ-JP:30473] (2 of 5) [CR-110/2021] District Judge No.3, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.304/2018, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the lease deed/sale deed No. 8609 dated 14.09.2015 as well as permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant Nos.1 to 5 (for short ‘the defendants’). Later on, on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the defendant-Bank was impleaded as party defendant No.6 in the suit vide order dated 07.02.2019 by the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank further submits that the defendant-Bank filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court but the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank also submits that the defendant No.1-Bharat Singh had given a guarantee for re-payment of the loan and interest taken by M/s MD Enterprises and M/s Oasis International and also mortgaged the plot No. A-15, Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur registered sale deed of which was executed on 14.09.2015 with the defendant-Bank. On account of non-payment, the defendant-bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). To avoid the said proceedings, the plaintiff, in connivance with the defendant No.1 filed the suit. As per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try it [2025:RJ-JP:30473] (3 of 5) [CR-110/2021] but the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2021 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the petition filed by the defendant-Bank be allowed, order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Smt. Vimla & Ors. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.282/2024 decided on

10.07.2025: (2) Nisar Khan & Ors. Vs. Authorised Officer & Anr. in S. B. Civil Second Appeal No.119/2012 decided on 30.07.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant-Bank and submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit through his Power of Attorney holder Manish Kumar Sapra. The plaintiff is residing in the USA. He had not mortgaged any document of the plot in question with the defendant-Bank. The defendant No.1, in connivance with the defendant Nos.2 and 3, acquired a forged Patta and executed the sale deed. By way of the suit, the plaintiff wants to cancel the said Patta and only the civil court has jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff has also initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur wherein the Tribunal directed the defendant-Bank to handover peaceful possession of the plot in question to the plaintiff. The Tribunal also found that while sanctioning the loan, proper legal formalities were not complied with. The bank officials were involved in it. [2025:RJ-JP:30473] (4 of 5) [CR-110/2021] Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff lodged an FIR against defendant No.1-Bharat Singh in which charge-sheet has been filed against him. The plaintiff had not sought any relief against the defendant-Bank. The plaintiff only wants to declare the Patta as null and void. So, the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2021 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Central Bank of India & Anr. V/s. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. Reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 163: (2) Mrs. Leelaamma Mathew V/s. M/s Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. Reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1176: (3) Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. V/s. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 870: (4) Saleem Bhai & Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in 2003 1 Supreme 433: (5) Aavas Financiers Ltd. V/s. Smt. Bhagwanti Mahawar reported in 2023 0 Supreme (MP) 393: (6) IDBI Bank V/s Minor Shri Hari Aadarsh & Ors. Reproted in 2023 0 Supreme (Mad) 3056: I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant-Bank as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that M/s MD Enterprises and M/s Oasis International took a loan from the defendant-Bank and mortgaged plot No.A-15, Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur by the [2025:RJ-JP:30473] (5 of 5) [CR-110/2021] defendant No.1 with the defendant-Bank as a security. The owner of the plot was the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 acquired a forged Patta and also got a sale deed registered. The plaintiff lodged an FIR against the defendant No.1-Bharat Singh in which a charge- sheet has been filed against him. The plaintiff also filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur wherein the Tribunal directed the defendant-Bank to handover peaceful possession of the said plot to the plaintiff as the bank officials had not complied with the formalities while sanctioning the loan. Although, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, stayed the order of the learned DRT, Jaipur to hand over the possession of the said plot to the plaintiff but in the present case, the plaintiff wants to cancel the Patta dated 14.09.2015 and the civil court has only jurisdiction to cancel the said Patta. The plaintiff had not sought any relief against the defendent-Bank. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/84 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J