The Civil Court has jurisdiction over ownership claims and allegations of fraud concerning loan documents, which cannot be decided by the DRT under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of an ad interim prayer of injunction made by the plaintiff in a suit, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff/appellant is having 50% ownership right, title and interest in the suit property, a declaration that the claim asserted by the defendant no.1-Bank in its letter dated September 3, 2024 that loan and/or credit facility was granted in favour of the plaintiff is false, incorrect and non est in the eye of law, a declaration that the claim of equitable mortgage made by the defendant no.1-Bank in respect of the plaintiff’s 50% share of in the suit property is false, incorrect and non est, for declaration that written instruments being an agreement dated January 14, 2021, memorandum of entry dated February 15, 2021 and other documents relating to loan and/or credit facilities as referred to in the letter dated September 3, 2024 are void and be delivered up and cancel, and for perpetual injunction protecting the possession for the plaintiff in respect of the said property as well as restraining the defendant no.1 from alienating and/or creating any third party interest in respect of 50% ownership right for the plaintiff in the said property.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is devoid of reasons.

3. It is submitted that although in its letter dated September 3, 2024, the defendant no.1-Bank claims that the plaintiff/appellant and his brother, Hari Ram Goenka (since deceased), proprietor of Shree Bajrang Bhandar, jointly applied for loan/credit facility, the loan agreement does not contain any signature of the plaintiff. It is further argued that the memorandum of entry dated February 15, 2021 also contains no signature of either the appellant or the said Hari Ram. Furthermore, a magisterial declaration has been alleged to be executed by the owners of the property, namely, the appellant and the said Hari Ram, which declaration was, however, never produced in the court below.

4. In any event, the appellant alleges that the documents indicating a guarantee being furnished by the appellant in respect of the purported loan are manufactured and forged.

5. It is argued that the suit was filed on November 5, 2024 whereas a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, was received by the appellant on November 6, 2024. The said notice was waived by a subsequent notice under Section 13(2) dated December 24, 2024, issued during pendency of the suit. Till date, no measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has been taken by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1-Bank to the knowledge of the appellant and, as such, the appellant does not have any scope to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the Civil Court had full jurisdiction to grant the injunction as sought by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India and Another v. Smt. Prabha Jain and Others [Civil Appeal No.1876 of 2016], for the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as regards an independent suit against the bank in the context of the provisions of the RDB Act, 1993. It was further held there that in a suit challenging the validity of a sale deed, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not permitted to e