The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed analysis of the prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience when granting injunctions, and the proper consideration of jurisdictional issues.

Common Judgment: P.K. Misra, J.

Defendant No.1 in C.S.No.837 of 2004 has filed these appeals against the common order dated 22.11.2005 in O.A.No.888 of 2004 and Appln.No.4236 of 2004.

2. The plaintiff / Respondent No.1 has filed the suit for declaration that the alleged equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds said to have been created by the plaintiff on 3.10.2000 in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property to secure the loan availed by the second defendant from the first defendant as illegal, null and void, and for injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property and mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to handover the possession of the three rooms sealed by them on 14.9.2004. The disputed property has been described in the schedule.

3. The substance of the claim of the plaintiff / Respondent No.1 is to the effect that the disputed property has fallen to the share of the plaintiff in a partition took place between himself and other co-sharers. The plaintiff in connection with some business transaction with Defendant No.2, given the original documents relating to disputed property to the second defendant. The second defendant had also obtained signatures in some blank papers and printed forms. Subsequently, the second defendant had returned the deed of partition, but had not returned the original patta. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff received a letter from the first defendant Bank regarding his liability as a guarantor in respect of the loan obtained by the second defendant from the first defendant Bank. The plaintiff had informed the Bank at that stage that he has not executed any guarantee deed nor any letter evidencing deposit of title deeds, but the bank had ignored such representation and sent notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". On receipt of such notice, as an immediate relief, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.24279 of 2003 challenging the validity of the Act. Such writ petition along with many other similar writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench on 29.4.2004. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the petitioners can file their objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order which should be considered by the Bank. Even though such order was received by the counsel for the plaintiff on 25.8.2004, due to delay in communication, the objection could not be filed within 15 days, but was filed on 17.9.2004. However, the bank taking advantage of non-receipt of the objection within 15 days, passed an order under Section 13(4) of the Act on 14.9.2004 and on the same day the Authorised Officer of the first defendant locked three rooms including the kitchen of the plaintiff. It is averred by the plaintiff that no equitable mortgage had been created by him and, therefore, the bank had no jurisdiction to proceed under the Act. On the basis of the above pleadings, the suit has been filed for the reliefs already indicated.

4. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed Original Appln.No.888 of 2004 under Order 39 and Rule 1 & 2 CPC for issuing an interim injunction restraining the first defendant bank from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the applicants property. The plaintiff also filed Appln.No.4236 of 2004 under Order 39 and Rule 1 & 2 CPC for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant bank to remove the seal of the premises mentioned in the schedule.

5. A written statement has been filed by the first defendant bank denying the allegations in the plaint and it has been stated therein that equitable mortgage has been created and the plaintiff stood as guarantor in respect of the loan obtained by the second defendant. The question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is also raised. Objection was also filed in