Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank … vs Smt Vimla Devi Wife Of Sh. Vedprakash @ … on 10 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:25363]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 282/2024
The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bharatpur,
Mukhya Karyalaya Kila Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur,
Through Mukhya Karyakari Adhikari-Cum-Pradhikrit Adhikari,
The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bharatpur, Tehsil
And District Bharatpur(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
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
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:49:19 PM)
[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
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:49:19 PM)
[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.
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:49:19 PM)
[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
(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-
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:49:19 PM)
[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.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/50
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:49:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link