AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Seeking review of the order dated 29.02.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.432 of 2016, by a Division Bench of this Court, constituting of one of us (S. Talapatra, J), it has been urged that the finding in the said order dated 29.02.2016 as reproduced hereunder is not based on the averments either of the writ petition or of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2:
"By means of this petition the petitioner had challenged the possession notice dated 11th June, 2015 published on 12th June, 2015 in Syandan Patrika as well as vacation notice dated 22nd August, 2015 by which the petitioner were directed to vacate the following properties:
Sl.
No.
Description of the properties
1
Land & Building located at Chhinaihani, P.S. Airport, Dist- West Tripura
Deed No.
1-10506 Dated 15.09.2005
Khatian No.
600
Dag No.
7550 (Hal)
Area measuring
0.12 Acres
Mouja
Singerbill, Tahasil-Lankamura
2
Land & Building located at Chhinaihani, P.S. Airport, Dist- West Tripura
Deed No.
1-8094 Dated 07.12.2007
Khatian No.
1650
Dag No.
7564,7565,7566
(Hal)
Area measuring
0.060 Acres
Mouja
Singerbill, Tahasil - Lankamura
3
Land & Building located at Chhinaihani, P.S. Airport, Dist- West Tripura
Allotment Order No.
1-3046/83 Dated 01.08.1983
Khatian No.
1650
Dag No.
7564,7565,7566
(Hal)
Area measuring
36 Gandas i.e 31104 Sq ft
Mouja
Singerbill, Tahasil - Lankamura
The case of the petitioner was that though the first two properties were mortgaged with the Bank, the third property was not mortgaged with the Bank. Accepting the statement of the petitioner to be correct, we had granted stay with regard to the property No.3 as under:
Sl.
No.
Description of the properties
3
Land &
Building located at Chhinaihani,
P.S. Airport,
Dist- West Tripura
Allotment Order No.
1-3046/83 Dated
01.08.1983
Khatian No.
1650
Dag No.
7564,7565,7566 (Hal)
Area measuring
36 Gandas i.e 31104 Sq ft
Mouja
Singerbill, Tahasil - Lankamura
Thereafter the bank filed a reply and it was pointed out to us that in fact the petitioner had prayed for enhancement of the cash credit limit and in consideration of grant of such enhancement of cash credit limit, the petitioner had initially agreed to mortgage this 3rd property and the allotment letter of this 3rd property was filed with the bank and the bank treated it as a equitable mortgage. However, later it was discovered that what had been filed was not the original allotment letter but a photocopy of the letter and thereafter the petitioner was told to either settle the amount or to give additional security. The petitioner has not disputed this fact. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner while approaching this Court did not inform this Court that he had entered into an equitable mortgage with regard to his 3rd property even though that mortgage may not have been a legal mortgage. It is more than obvious that the petitioner has been trying to play hide and seek with the Court."
[2] Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel and Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this finding is factually incorrect as no 'equitable mortgage' was created by the petitioners in favour of the bank-respondents for enhancement of cash credit limit.
[3] Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the bank- respondents has produced the following records before us:
(i) Deed in Form No.D17C for extension of equitable mortgage dated 28.10.2014
(ii) Letter dated 21.11.2014 of the Senior Manager, United Bank of India to the Senior Manager, United Bank of India, Agartala, Branch.
(iii) Encashment of the cash credit to over all limit of Rs.40,00,000/- by the agreement which is duly signed by the petitioners.
(iv) Affidavit dated 18.10.2014 by the petitioner No.1 and his wife, namely Smt. Alaka Debnath, the petitioner No.2.
(v) Allotment letter in respect of the land pertaining to C.S. Plot No.4659 measuring 1.30 acres of Mouja- Singerbil dated 01.08.1983.
(vi) Khatian No.1650 of Mouja- Singerbil where the petitioner No.1 and his wife, the petitioner No.2 herein, are shown as the equal shareholders of the said land covered by the allotment letter.
(vii) Acknowledgment letter dated 22.09.2015 relating to deposit of title deeds by the guarantor, namely Smt. Alaka Debnath, the petitioner No.2 herein.
(viii) Acknowledgment letter dated 22.09.2015 relating to deposit of title deeds by the borrower, namely Smt. Chittaranjan Debnath, the petitioner No.1 herein.
(ix) Relevant entry of the title deed register for extension of the cash credit limit to Rs.40,00,000/-
(x) The certificate dated 24.22.2014 after creation of such mortgage in respect of the land covered by the allotment letter which has been referred as the third property and
(xi) The order dated 22.09.2016.
[4] That apart, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the bank- respondents has submitted that the newspapers namely Tripura Times dated 27.09.2014 and the Dainik Sambad dated 26.09.2014 containing the notice published by the petitioners to the effect that they had lost original allotment letter No.3046/83 dated 01.08.1983 are also in the records. As brought to the notice of the public at large thereby the 'equitable mortgage' was created on the basis of the copy of the allotment letter and the khatian. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has submitted that the bank-respondents had averred these facts in the affidavit-in-reply filed on 22.01.2016. All these aspects were cautiously and carefully considered by this Court and only thereafter, the order dated 29.02.2016 has been passed. He did not spare to submit that this review petition is an another ploy of the petitioners to drag the bank-respondents in the court for purchasing time for their oblique purpose. This court at the threshold should dismiss the review petition with exemplary costs.
[5] Having considered all these records and grounds so urged in this review petition, we are not persuaded to review the order dated 29.02.2016 inasmuch as the grounds as urged before this Court have been taken due care of by this Court by the order dated 29.02.2016. Whether an 'equitable mortgage' has been properly created or not, such dispute cannot be entertained by this court in its review jurisdiction. We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, for filing this vexatious review petition, this Court has been constrained to impose a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) on the petitioners which shall be invariably paid by the petitioners within 30(thirty) days from today in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee.