Fraud allegations must provide specific particulars to circumvent the jurisdictional bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; vague claims are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant first appeal under section 96 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.5.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Bulandshahar in O.S. No. 382 of 2024 Smt.Noushad Begam vs. Punjab National Bank and others, whereby the application of defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002( SARFAESI Act, 2002).

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

(A)The plaintiff-appellant filed O.S. No. 382 of 2024 in the trial court against Punjab National Bank(defendant no.1) and Harish Kumar Verma(defendant no.5), the proprietor of Messers Dharamveer Jewellers(defendant no.4) with the averments that she is a very poor lady, whose husband Sabir was a labourer employed in the occupation of cleaning, polishing and repairing gold and silver jewellery with defendant no.4. She further averred that in the beginning of year 2017 defendant no.5, Harish KumarVerma told her husband that since he remains in the possession of valuable gold- silver jewellery during the process of cleaning and repairing it, as such, for securing the above valuable jewellery, surety was required and then her husband had deposited the sale deed of a house, which was in her name, with the above defendant, since her husband was not having any property in his name. She further averred that her above sale deed was kept by defendant no.5 as surety for giving her husband employment.

(B)The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that the defendants Punjab National Bank and Harish Kumar Verma colluded with each other and consequently, the bank sanctioned a cash credit loan of ₹32 lakhs on 6.7.2017 in favour of the above firm of the defendant, which came into the knowledge of the plaintiff after having oral talks with the defendant Harish KumarVerma. It was further averred that the bank sanctioned the above loan to the defendant no.4 & 5 illegally without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff. The sale deed of the plaintiffs house was deposited in equitable mortgage, fraudulent guarantee papers were prepared on her behalf and for causing illegal gain to the defendant firm and for causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff, the above loan was sanctioned by the bank to the defendant firm.

(C)It was further averred by the plaintiff that she is a poor, illiterate, parda-nashin woman of rural background, who is unaware of the legal niceties. She neither deposited the sale deed of her house as a surety nor stood as a guarantor for the loan sanctioned by the bank to defendant no. 4 & 5, she never executed any guarantee agreement, surety agreement etc. in favour of the bank for the alleged loan and if any such document was having her signature/thumb impression, then it was a fraudulent and fabricated document because she never executed any such agreement/document in favour of the bank. She further averred that she has only the disputed house of area 48 square yard, to reside with her family and as such, she had no reason to give surety of this house to the bank.

(D)She further averred that she was informed by the defendant bank that she was a guarantor of the loan sanctioned to defendant no. 4 & 5, to which she had protested and then, the defendant bank had assured her in the year 2020 that it will not take any action against her and she will be absolved from the guarantee/surety give