The main legal point established is the enforcement of a mortgage for the recovery of a loan, and the court's authority to pass a preliminary decree in the absence of the defendants.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order XXXVII Rule 2 of OS Rules, to pass a Judgment and Decree by

a) directing the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.9,05,64,656/- (Rupees Nine Crores Five Lakhs Sixty Four Lakhs Six Hundred and Twenty Six Fifty Six only) with interest at 16% per annum on Rs.6,93,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Ninety Three Lakhs only) from the date of the plaint till repayment in full by passing a preliminary decree fixing up a date for the same;

b) Failing which pass a final decree directing the sale of the schedule mentioned property and on realisation to pay the same to the plaintiff;

c) directing the defendants 1 to 3 personally to pay the balance amount if any, after the sale of the schedule mentioned property; and

d) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.)

1. The suit had been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,05,64,656/- together with interest at 16% p.a., on Rs.6,93,00,000/- on the strength of a mortgage said to have been executed by the first to third defendants on 11.04.2018 in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The defendants had been served with suit summons, but they had taken a concious decision not to appear before this Court. Consequently, taking note of their absence, the fourth defendant was set ex-parte on 27.04.2021 and the first and third defendants were set exparte on 27.01.2022. The plaintiff was directed to let in ex-parte evidence.

3. The case of the plaintiff as seen in the plaint is that the first deefndant was known to the plaintiff through various business transactions and stated that he had entered into a one time settlement with State Bank of India to settle the dues of a company called M/s. Ankit Ispat Pvt. Ltd. He requested the plaintiff to help him in the payment of the one time settlement of a sum of Rs.6,93,00,000/-. The plaintiff advanced the said amount and the defendants 1 to 3 execute a mortgage with respect to the suit schedule property.

4. The suit schedule property as described in the plaint was land and building at Plot No.11, Old Door No.66, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, measuring 1987.42 sq.ft., with built up area of about 2,000 sq.ft. In view of the amount advanced by the plaintiff as aforesaid, the first defendant avoided further proceedings by the State Bank of India. A compromise memo was recorded and the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as against the defendants came to an end.

5. The plaintiff sought return of his money. The defendants did not comply. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 17.01.2020 calling upon the defendants to pay the amount under the mortgatge failing which it was stated that he would enforce the mortgage. Reply was given on 02.02.2020 and a further reply by the plaintiff was given on 10.02.2020. Realising that the defendants would not honour their commitment under the mortgage, the plaintiff had instituted this suit.

6. As stated, the defendants had set ex-parte.

7. To prove the claim of the plaintiff, Satyabrat Behera, was examined as PW-1 and he filed his proof affdiavit narrating the facts and the averments made in the plaint. Ex.B-1 is the statement showing the payments made to State Bank of India by the first, second and third defendants. The demand promissory note dated 11.04.2018 was marked as Ex.P-2 and the original mortage deed dated 11.04.2018 registered as Document No. 887 of 2018 was marked as Ex.P-3. The compromise effected by the defendants with the State Bank of India was marked as Ex.P-4 and the order accepting such compromise by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was marked as Ex.P-5. The notices were marked as Exs.P-7 and P-9.

8. In view of the evidence particularly in view of the fact that the mortgage deed had been produced and marked as documents and the defendants had taken a decision not to participate in the judicial proceedings, which in fact makes it evident that they would be bound by any decree passed by this Court a pr