JUDGMENT :

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioners had obtained three separate loans from the respondent bank. Two of the loan accounts were settled, however, the third loan account was not settled. When the first petitioner approached the respondent bank to release the documents in relation to the properties mortgaged in relation to the loans which were already settled, the respondent bank, by letter dated 4.8.2017, refused to return the documents. The respondent bank refused to return the documents on the ground that the first petitioner had obtained another loan as Sole Proprietor of M/s.Babu Dresses (second petitioner) from the respondent bank and he had not repaid the said loan amount and committed default. This loan account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and, hence, the respondent bank had filed a suit for recovery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal being O.A.No.434 of 2017. In the letter dated 4.8.2017, it is further stated that since the first petitioner was liable to pay substantial amount to the bank, the bank has exercised its general lie