1. This is a petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, challenging the order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Principal District Judge, Samba, whereby an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment as a party respondent in the appeal proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the “Act”), has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:—

3. The State Bank of India – respondent No. 2 herein initiated action against the respondent No. 1 – M/s Cecil Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd under the provisions of the Act and in that regard issued a notice to the respondent No. 1 under Section 13(2) of the Act and took possession of the unit. An auction notice came to be issued under Section 13(4) of the Act by the Bank, which was challenged under Section 17(A) of the Act on 10.01.2019. Vide order dated 10.01.2019, the learned Principal District Judge, Samba directed the Bank not to finalize the auction process.

4. The Bank, in the meantime, appears to have issued an auction sale notice on 07.12.2018, declaring its intention to sell the property mortgaged with the Bank. The petitioner herein submitted its bid on 04.01.2019 in terms of the auction sale notice dated 07.12.2018 and also made an earnest deposit of Rs. 32 lacs with the respondent-Bank on the same date. On 09.01.2019, the petitioner was declared as a successful bidder in the auction process.

5. The petitioner claims that an amount of Rs. 3.23 crores was deposited by it on 10.01.2019 with the respondent –Bank, who then executed two sale certificates in favour of the petitioner. One such certificate was in respect of the factory, land and building and second in regard to the plant and machinery installed therein. The said sale certificates were executed purportedly on 10.01.2019. The petitioner claims that the actual physical possession of the said property was handed over to the petitioner on 10.01.2019 itself.

6. In the background of the aforementioned facts, an application came to be filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 before the Principal District Judge, Samba, seeking impleadment as a party respondent in the proceedings pending before him. In the application so submitted before the Court, it was asserted that the applicant (petitioner herein) had become the owner of the factory, including the land, plant and machinery and the title of the said property had since passed in its favour.

7. It was in those circumstances prayed in the application that the petitioner was required to be impleaded as a party respondent, inasmuch as, their rights would be materially affected and had a right of being heard, being a necessary/proper party in the proceedings. The Court, however, by virtue of the order impugned dated 23.03.2019, rejected the application of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the presence of the petitioner could not at all help in the effective and complete adjudication of the issue with which it was seized, i.e., whether the pre-auction auction of the Bank under the Act was sustainable or not.

8. It was further held that instead of resolving the issues, the presence of the applicant at that juncture would create complications and divert focus from the central issues, which required to be adjudicated. It was held that the validity of sale in favour of the applicant by the Bank would depend upon the adjudication by the Court on the validity of the procedural action taken by the respondent at the pre-auction stage. It was also held that while the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction proceedings and the sale certificate had been issued in his favour, yet the same had not been confirmed in favour of the applicant, as the Court had directed the Bank not to finalize the auction proces