JUDGMENT :

This is a defendant's revision, challenging an order of Smt. Anupama Singh, Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Meerut rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [For short “C.P.C.”].

2. An Original Suit No. 255 of 2018 was instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Meerut by Smt. Satbiri, the plaintiff-respondent here, against Amit Jain, the defendant-respondent no. 1 and the Punjab National Bank, Branch Mangal Pandey Nagar through its Branch Manager, arrayed as the second defendant, seeking a mandatory and a prohibitory injunction, rolled up into one, to the effect that a decree be passed against defendant-respondent no. 2, the Punjab National Bank ordering the said defendant to de-seal the suit property, bearing Flat No. B-405, Fourth Floor, Ansal Township, Meerut Road, and to keep it so, until realization of the defendant-Bank's loan from defendant no. 1 and his guarantors, or until a settlement with the plaintiff. It is also a part of the relief that till such time that the defendant-Bank's loan is realized from the first defendant, or a settlement arrived at with the plaintiff, the Bank be forbidden from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.

3. In substance, it is the plaintiff-respondent's case that she purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.2015, executed in her favour by defendant-respondent no. 1, Amit Jain. She is the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the aforesaid conveyance. The plaintiff is poorly educated and hails from a rural background, on account of which, she could not understand the consequences or the impact of documents relating to the Ansal Township Company. However, before buying the suit property from defendant no. 1, she had inquired about the property from the vendor-defendant and purchased it, after scrutinizing documents relating to the suit property. Defendant-respondent no. 1, Amit Jain, was owner in possession of the suit property, situate in Ansal Town, as the documents relating to the property would show. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/- lacs and entered into ownership possession of the same. It is the plaintiff's case that defendant-respondent no. 1 informed her at the time of execution of the sale deed that the sale deed in original, in his favour, is in the safe keeping of the Bank in his locker and it being a Bank holiday, she should get the sale deed executed on the assurance that the following day, defendant no. 1 would retrieve his original title deed from the bank locker and hand it over to the plaintiff. It is then pleaded that defendant no. 2, the Bank, issued a letter dated 03.08.2016 to the plaintiff, addressed to defendant no. 1, Amit Jain that brought the fact to her knowledge that the defendant-Bank had advanced a loan to defendant no. 1, and that on account of non-payment of the scheduled instalments due towards repayment of the loan, the loan account had become a non performing asset.

4. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent had secured a copy of the sale deed dated 07.08.2015 from her Developer which led her to believe that there was no encumbrance over the suit property. The plaintiff also says that after acquisition of knowledge about the bank loan, she went to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Sardhana and inquired about the loan. The Sub Registrar's Office informed her that there was no loan affecting the suit property, because defendant no. 1, Amit Jain and defendant no. 2, the Punjab National Bank are in collusion with each other, leading to non availability of information about the Bank's encumbrance in the Sub Registrar's Office. It is then pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that on 13.09.2017, she received a notice about the Bank taking possession of the suit property. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff came to know from the defend