ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28-8-2019 by which the appellant’s writ petition being W.P.(C)No.328/2015 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge finding no merit and in view of the fact that the appellant has right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to file suit for redemption of the mortgaged property.

2. Challenge to the impugned order has been made by the appellant in the following factual backdrop: -

3. The writ appellant herein/writ petitioner was granted term loan by the respondent Bank and in lieu of that, the appellant had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent Bank by way of deposit of his title deeds in respect of the property comprising of Khasra No.276/6, area 0.105 hectare, situate at Hathbandh, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara and Khasra No.2, area 1.316 hectares, situate at Village Kukarachunda, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, but the appellant could not repay the term loan leading to issuance of notice by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and possession notice/demand notice was also issued against the appellant pursuant to which on 28-11-2013, the appellant deposited the entire loan amount and the execution case levied against him was withdrawn by the respondent Bank and consequently, since the entire loan amount was paid-off by the appellant, on 29-11-2013, he requested the bank to return the original title deeds deposited by him by way of equitable mortgage, which were not returned by the respondent Bank referring to other liabilities of the appellant herein in the Neora Branch of the respondent Bank as a result of which 15 civil suits of Rs.7,50,000/- each have been decreed with 10% interest with effect from 11-1-2012 along with cost and consequently, the appellant filed writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to return the title deeds deposited by way of mortgage, as the entire loan amount has already been paid-off. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein holding that under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the writ petitioner/appellant has right to redeem the mortgaged property by filing appropriate suit before the civil court and in that view of the matter, the writ petitioner is not entitled for writ of mandamus as sought for against which the writ petitioner/appellant has preferred the instant writ appeal.

4. Since the writ petition was dismissed summarily and the Bank did not have an opportunity to file return, an affidavit has been filed in the writ appeal stating that though the liabilities of loan account has been paid-off by the appellant herein, but other liabilities of repayment of loan is existing in the Neora Branch and other branches of the respondent Bank amounting to Rs.1,12,50,000/- and interest payable on the said amount along with cost as decreed by the jurisdictional civil court. In that view of the matter, the respondent Bank is within its legal right to retain the mortgaged deed as huge amount of public money is still to be recovered from the appellant and payment of the questioned amount would not create any legal right in favour of the appellant to obtain mortgaged title deeds from the respondent Bank in light of the provisions contained in Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as the respondent Bank has exercised Banker’s lien/general lien over all the properties of the appellant as the appellant has failed to discharge his liability in respect of other 16 loans, as such, the Bank is not legally obliged to return the title deeds which were furnished as guarantee by the appellant in the term loan account and therefore the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that since the term loan