JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Though, this happens to be a First Appeal, apparently against a dismissal of a Civil Suit being Suit No. 92 of 2018, Sheet al Joshi v. State Bank of India and another branch Pithoragarh, whereby, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithoragarh, had dismissed Suit of the plaintiff (appellant herein) on the ground that the relief sought for in the Suit was barred by the provisions contained under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction o f Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002)

2. The brief facts, which are involved in the case at hand are that the seller of t he plaintiff/appellant was a borrower of a loan from the respondent/Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Ninety Lakh only). The endorsement pertaining to mortgaging of the property in question, which stands recorded in the khatoni in khata No. 1 of 142 3 to 1428 fasli it shows that the property was mortgaged as against the financial assistance extended by the respondent/bank to the seller of the plaintiff/appellant by Mr. Rajesh Samant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a purchaser of the property in question from the borrower, by virtue of sale deed dated 28th September 2016, and as far as the issue pertaining to an extension of loan and mortgage of the property against the loan extended was not ma de aware or was in the knowledge of the appellant prior to his purchase on 28th September 2016. Consequently, when did the respondent/bank has initiated the proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, too was not known to the plaintiff/appellant and since the appellant has stepped into the shoes of the principal borrower after the purchase being made by him by the sale deed dated 28th September 2016, the necessity arose for the plaintiff/appellant to institute a Suit before the Civil Court being Suit No. 92 of 2018, Sheetal Joshi v. State Bank of India and others

4. In the suit in question, the plaintiff/appellant had sought for the following reliefs:-

^^¼v½ ,d LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk dh fMØh oknh ds i{k esa ,oa Áfroknhx.k ds fo:} bl vk'k;d dh ikfjr dj nh tk; fd Áfroknhx.k xzke vksyhxkWao lksj] iVVh thoh] rglhy] ftyk fiFkkSjkx<+ ds [kkrk la[;k 00019 ds [ksr uEcjku 926] 927] 928] 929 dks pkj uky ikWap eqBBh Hkwfe ;kfu 862-5 oxZehVj Hkwfe dh bZ-&uhykeh] [kqnZ cqnZ o vU; laxzfer djus ls ckt vk;sA

¼c½ okn O;; oknh dks Áfroknhx.k ls fnyk tk;A

¼l½ vU; U;k;laxr vuqrks"k tks ekWaxus ls jg x;s gksa vkSj ftUgsa nsuk ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s fnyk fn;s tk;A

5. As per the relief clause, he has sought for a decree of permanent injunction as against the defendant/respondent, seeking a decree of restraint as against the interference being caused by the defendant/respondent to the suit property lying in khata No. 19, which stood mortgaged for the purposes of extension of loan by the seller of the plaintiff/appellant with the bank.

6. The argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, is to the effect that the appellant was not made aware of the fact that the property having been mortgaged by his seller and without being made aware of the said fact that the plaintiff/appellant had purchased the property in question which according to him, was a bonafide purchase made by the plaintiff/appellant. But, on the basis of the fact, which has been brought on record by the plaintiff/appellant him self shows that as against the loan advance extended to the seller of the plaintiff/appellant, the respondent/bank had already initiated the proceeding by issuing notices under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 28th June 2017, and thereafter an action under sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act has been taken by the respondent No. 2 on 30th October 2017, and consequent thereto, the property was put to for e-auctioning by the respondent. Even so much so, that after the alleged purchase when the application for