The plaintiff's default in loan repayment and the classification of the loan account as NPA disentitled her from obtaining an interim injunction.

ORDER :

Instant civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, lays challenge to order dated 31.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla, HP, in CMA No. 14 of 2021, reversing/setting aside order dated 13.12.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.4, Shimla, District Shimla, HP in CMA No. 1414 of 2019 in CS No. 131 of 2019, whereby the court below while allowing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, having been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, restrained the defendant-respondent-bank from seizing/taking the possession of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP63A-7036 from the plaintiff-petitioner, who is in lawful possession of the same till the case is decided on merits.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for Permanent Perpetual Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the defendant from seizing/dispossessing/taking possession of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-63-A-7036 from her and from anyone in lawful possession with a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the vehicle loan account No.09810610008065 and thereafter, issue NOC for removal of the hypothecation entry in the RC.

3. Plaintiff averred in the suit that vide letter dated 20.8.2018, vehicle loan to the tune of Rs. 3,38,000/- was sanctioned in her favour after payment of margin money. As per agreed terms, plaintiff was required to pay EMI @ Rs. 5387/- pm, which included interest and other necessary expenses. Plaintiff kept on paying the necessary remittances regularly to the defendant as per the schedule of the installments settled at the time of grant of loan and yet, outstanding amount was being shown in the account of the plaintiff and as such, she made a demand for supply of detailed settlement of accounts. Plaintiff requested the defendant to close the loan account and issue NOC so that entry with regard to hypothecation could be removed. However, defendant instead of supplying NOC issued demand notice dated 16.9.2019, showing the dues. When plaintiff enquired from the defendant–bank as to why the notice has been sent to her when all the outstanding dues have been cleared by making substantial deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- lac on 11.6.2019 in her saving account for adjustment in the loan amount as agreed upon and suggested by the Chief Manager Smt. Bima Dutta, they had no answer, but instead, they threatened that either the plaintiff deposit the demanded amount or they may take away the vehicle. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein to restrain the defendant Bank from taking forcible possession of the vehicle in question during the pendency of the case. Aforesaid application for interim injunction came to be resisted by the defendant-Bank by filing reply, wherein it specifically denied that plaintiff has paid the entire loan amount to the defendant. Defendant claimed that as per the terms of the loan sanction letter, loan was required to be repaid to the defendant bank in 84 equal monthly installments for Rs. 5387 alongwith interest @ 8.70%pa with monthly rest or such other rates as may be revised by the defendant Bank from time to time. Defendant claimed that plaintiff in consideration of sanctioning of the loan of Rs. 3,38,000/-accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 20.8.2018, in favour of the defendant-bank. Smt. Geeta Devi daughter of Shi Deena Nath i.e. sister of the plaintiff stood as guarantor in favour of the plaintiff and executed a deed of continuing guarantee dated 20.8.2018 in favour of the defendant Bank. Defendant claimed that vehicle is purchased by the plaintiff with the financial assistance of the defendant bank and vehicle is hypothecated to the defendant bank and entry to that effect stands recorded in the registration certificate of the car. While denying that plaintiff kept on paying