AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, J
1) The petitioner has preferred the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to seek a direction to the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the title and possession, in respect of the property in question, unless the application preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, is decided by the trial court.
2) The petitioner had, admittedly, obtained loans from the respondent-bank. According to the petitioner, out of the 04 loans, 02 are unsecured. The petitioner claims that the respondent / defendant initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, even in respect of the unsecured loans by invoking Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner filed a suit before the trial court, and also sought an interim injunction by moving an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. The trial court has not granted any interim injunction in respect of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, this petition has been preferred.
3) The issue – whether the properties in question were offered as security for the loan, or not, is an issue which would require appreciation of the agreement of the parties. Since the respondent-bank has invoked Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the inference, though prima facie, would be that the properties in question form part of the security offered by the petitioner to obtain the loans. Since the respondent has invoked Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has a remedy before the DRT, under Section 17 of the same Act. Instead of preferring the said remedy, the petitioner preferred to file the civil suit, with an application for interim injunction.
4) In my view, if such a course of action is encouraged, every borrower would rush to the civil court, and would pray that till the application for interim injunction is decided, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act should not be proceeded with. This would completely defeat the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. I am, therefore, of the view that the trial court has rightly not granted any interim injunction to the petitioner in the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.
5) The further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is, that the loan in question is an agricultural loan, and, therefore, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be undertaken. In my view, even this submission can be best appreciated by the DRT in proceedings under Section 17 of the said Act, which is open to the petitioner to initiate.
6) In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.