IMPORTANT POINT
The shifting stands of the parties and the validity of the mortgage deed raised doubts about the respondent's defense, leading to the court's conclusion that the suit filed before the civil court was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) -

CM APPL. 56304/2023 in CM(M) 1706/2023

1. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by CCJ-Cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi ('Trial Court') in CS SCJ No. 1819/2023, titled as Rishi Pal Sharma v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., whereby the Trial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant no.1 (i.e., the Petitioner herein) from taking possession of the shop no. 3493, measuring 13.29 sq. mtrs. forming the part of property bearing no. 3485-3496, ward no. 6, Chawari Bazar, Chowk Hauz Qazi, Delhi ('subject property').

1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant no.1 and the Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff before the Trial Court.

1.2. The Petitioner herein sanctioned Home Equity Loan of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- in favour of Respondents in 2019. As security against the said loan the Respondent No.1 executed a mortgage deed qua the subject property on 09.08.2019, which was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar III, New Delhi ('mortgage deed').

1.3. The Respondents defaulted in repayment of the above-said loan and the Petitioner thereafter initiated action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act') and issued a demand notice dated 20.09.2022 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

1.4. The Petitioner thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in MA No. 51/2023 before the appropriate Court, seeking directions to appoint a receiver to take the physical possession of the properties of Respondent No.1. The said application was allowed by the CMM, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('concerned Court') vide order 04.03.2023.

1.5. The Court receiver issued notice dated 12.03.2023 for taking physical possession of the subject property, scheduled for 30.03.2023.

1.6. As per the record, the Respondent No.1 challenged the notice issued by the receiver by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bearing S.A. No. 184/2023, seeking setting aside of the possession notice dated 12.03.2023 issued by the Court receiver. The said application was listed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I ('DRT-I') on 29.03.2023 and the Respondents made a statement that entire overdue amount of Rs. 19.50 Lakhs will be deposited with the Petitioner on the same day.

It would be pertinent to note that Respondent No.1 has disputed filing of this application before DRT-I by contending that he has not signed the said application.

1.7. As per the Petitioner, the Respondents herein acted upon the order dated 29.03.2023 and paid the overdue amount of Rs. 19.50 Lakhs with the Petitioner, but failed to get their loan account regularized, which as per the Petitioner was overdue and the Respondents defaulted in making the due payment.

1.8. The Petitioner thereafter moved an application before the concerned Court seeking direction to the Court receiver to take steps in terms of the earlier order dated 04.03.2023. The said application was allowed by the concerned Court vide order dated 18.08.2023. The Court receiver issued fresh possession notices dated 25.08.2023 qua the properties of the Respondents.

1.9. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 1819/2023 against the Petitioner herein seeking declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction on 15.09.2023 alleging that the Petitioner herein had obtained the mortgage of the subject property by playing fraud, cheating and by committing forgery. In this suit, the Trial Court passed the impugned order restraining the Petitioner herein from taking the possession of the subject property.

1.10. The Petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 on the ground that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of DRT.

2.