And District Bharatpur(Raj.) v. Satyadev Cheema Wali Gali, Mori Char Bagh, Bharatpur

Judgment

1. Smt Vimla Devi Wife Of Sh. Vedprakash @ Vedo, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Sindhi Dharmshala Ke Pass, Satyadev Cheema Wali Gali, Mori Char Bagh, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.).

2. Vedprakash @ Vedo S/o Late Sh. Saudan Singh, Aged 68 years, R/o Sindhi Dharamshala Ke Pass, Satyadev Cheema Wali Gali, Mori Char Bagh, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.).

Plaintiffs-Non-Petitioners

3. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Sh. Mohan Singh, Resident Of Rambabu Pehalwan Ki Gali, Atalband, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.).

4. Ashok Kumar Son Of Sh. Roshan Lal, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Makan No. 217/20, City Station Road, Footi Dharmshala, Agra, District Agra (U.p.).

5. Bhattu Son Of Sh. Roshan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Makan No. 217/20, City Station Road, Footi Dharmshala, Agra, District Agra (U.p.).

6. Kalu Son Of Sh. Roshan Lal, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Makan No. 217/20, City Station Road, Footi Dharmshala, Agra, District Agra (U.p.). Defendants/Proforma-Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:25363] (2 of 5) [CR-282/2024] Date of Judgment 10/07/2025 Heard. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 44 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.2-The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (for short ‘the defendant-Bank’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.41/2024, titled as “Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.” whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank submits that the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent Nos.3 to 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank also submits that the defendant-Bank filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 of SARFAESI Act before the trial court to the effect that as per Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the defendant-Bank has initiated proceedings for recovery of loan amount against the defendant No.3-Mukesh under the SARFAESI Act but the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:25363] (3 of 5) [CR-282/2024] vide order dated 18.04.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank further submits that the respondent No.3-Mukesh had taken a loan from the defendant-Bank by mortgaging the disputed property which was in his name. The plaintiffs wanted to get them as owner of the disputed property. So, the suit was not maintainable being barred by law. So, the petition filed by the defendant-Bank be allowed, order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the trial court be set- aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant-Bank and submitted that the disputed property was in the ownership of Sohan Lal, who is father of plaintiff No.1-Smt. Vimla Devi. Kishori Lal, who is bother in law of Sohan Lal, had wrongly executed a sale deed in favour of his niece Ruma Devi and mother of respondent Nos.4 to 6 by mis-representing him as an owner of the disputed property. Ruma Devi also wrongly executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3-Mukesh. So, the defendant-Bank had no right to recover the loan amount of Mukesh by attaching the disputed property. So, proceedings initiated by the Bank pursuant to the notice given by the defendant-Bank deserves to be declared as null and void by the Civil Court and only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court vide order dated

18.04.2024 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:25363] (4 of 5) [CR-282/2024] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) ‘Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. EIH Ltd. And Ors.’, reported in SCC 2017(1) Page 622 (2) ‘Abdu P. Vs. The Authorised Officer, The Federal Bank Ltd.’, reported in (2017) 1 NIJ 540 (3) ‘ICICI Bank Ltd. Bharatpur Thro’ its Authorized Signatory Mohit Diwan Vs. Pramod Kumar Garg & Anr.’, reported in 2018 (1) DNJ (Raj.) Page 39 (4) ‘Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors.’, reported in 2012(4) RLW 3371 (SC) (5) ‘Omprakash Choudhary Vs. Dr. Kailash Garg & Ors.’, reported in 2012(3) DNJ (Raj.) Page 1180 (6) ‘Shri Hanuti Hanuman Ji Mandir Trust Vs. Shri Hanuti Hanuman Sevak Samiti Bavari Koshiya Das & Ors.’ reported in 2017(1) DNJ (Raj.) Page 505 (7) ‘Bank of Baroda Vs. Ranjan Chetia’ reported in (2015) 2 NEJ

52. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant-Bank as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. As per the averments of the plaintiffs, disputed property belongs to Sohan Lal, who is father of the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Vimla Devi. Kishori Lal, who was brother in law of Sohan Lal, by misrepresenting himself as owner of the property in question, had sold the disputed property to his niece Ruma Devi and mother of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Ruma Devi also sold the disputed property to defendant No.3-Mukesh Kumar. Defendant No.3- [2025:RJ-JP:25363] (5 of 5) [CR-282/2024] Mukesh Kumar took a loan from the defendant-Bank and mortgaged the disputed property. On account of non-payment of loan amount, the defendant-Bank initiated the proceedings against the defendant No.3-Mukesh Kumar under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and a notice was also pasted at the conspicuous place on the disputed property. By way of the suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declare the proceedings initiated by the Bank pursuant to the said notice null and void. They also sought permanent injunction not to auction the disputed property. By virtue of present suit, the plaintiffs wanted to challenge the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-Bank under the SARFAESI Act. As per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, Civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed an error in entertaining the suit and dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. So, the present revision petition filed by the defendant-Bank deserves to be allowed. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant-Bank is allowed. The order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by law. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. Gourav/50 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J