Inderjot Singh vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors.

P.K. Bhasin, J

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant's deceased mother is one of the guarantors and had guaranteed the repayment of the loan granted by respondent No. 1 Bank to one partnership firm in the name of M/s. Indian Trading Company. During her life-time, she created an equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent No. 1 Bank by way of deposit of title deeds in respect of her residential house in Ludhiana. Appellant's mother died in September 2013 and in December 2013 the respondent No. 1 Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the principal borrowers and other guarantors as also to the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Smt. Gurmeetkaur. Since the Bank's dues were not cleared either by the principal borrower or by the guarantors/mortgagors, one of the mortgaged property was sold by the Bank for Rs. 39.25 lacs whereas the amount demanded by the Bank under Section 13(2) was Rs. 54,46,128.57. That property was sold by the Bank after the death of mortgagor of that property Sh. Ajmer Singh. That sale was challenged by his legal heirs by filing a petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT-II, Chandigarh. The DRT set aside that sale vide its order dated 18.7.2016 in SA No. 380/2015 and which order is now being challenged by the appellant though he was not a party impleaded in the SA filed by Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Sh. Jaspreet Singh, impleaded in the present appeal as respondents 5 to 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the said SA was pending he has sought impleadment but DRT had declined that prayer and appellant did not take any further steps to challenge the rejection of the impleadment application.

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that appellant is aggrieved by the order of the DRT refusing to set aside the sale of the mortgaged property of co-guarantor of his deceased mother for the reason that if the sale of that property is maintained then there would be no need for the Bank to proceed against the property which appellant has inherited from his mother along with the other legal heirs and which property is now being proposed to be sold by the Bank against which action the appellant had independently filed a petition under Section 17 but that SA has been rejected by the DRT, Chandigarh vide its order dated 18.7.2016 and the appellant has filed appeal against that order which is also listed today before this Tribunal. This Tribunal has issued notice to the respondents in that appeal (being Appeal No. 337 of 2016).

When it was put to the learned Counsel for the appellant as to what is there for legal heirs of one mortgagor to challenge the order of DRT passed at the instance of another mortgagor in respect of his property the answer was the same that in case his property is sold there would be no need of appellant's property to be sold inasmuch as the appellant has already paid half of the amount which was demanded by the Bank in its notice under Section 13(2) and balance can easily be recovered from other secured asset.

However, I am of the view that for this reason put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant to maintain this appeal as an aggrieved person is not acceptable. If, at all the appellant had felt that he was an interested party in the proceeding initiated by legal heirs of the another mortgagor/guarantor he could have challenged the order of the DRT whereby his impleadment application was declined. He, however, did not do that allowing the order of DRT's order to attain finality. Even if it is accepted that if the property, sale of which now stands set aside, were to be sold and the sale proceeds thereof would be sufficient to wipe off the entire liability of the guarantors/mortgagors the same will not entitle the appellant to challenge the order passed by the DRT in proceeding in which he is not a party as in no way he can be said to be a person aggrieved by the impugned order in the present case.

In this way, the appellant is really introducing a legal battle inter se the legal heirs of one mortgagor of one property and legal heirs of mortgager of another property. That is not the scope of the proceedings under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. It is however clarified that the appeal of the appellant in which notice has been issued and in which the appellant is protecting his own property would be considered on its own merit at the appropriate stage. In view of this rejection of the appeal in limine, the miscellaneous applications have been rendered infructuous.