$~P-4

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 29.10.2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025

Uploaded on:24.12.2025

+ C.R.P. 158/2024

SHRI RAM HOUSING FINANCE LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Shahrukh Inam, Advocate.

versus

ROSHINI DEVI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Paanchal, Ms.

Babita Paanchal and Mr. Karan

Paanchal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J UD GMEN T

1. The petitioner is arrayed as defendant No. 5 in CS SCJ/851/2022, pending before the JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, Patiala House Court, Delhi [“Trial Court”]. By way of the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], it assails an order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Trial Court in CS SCJ/851/2022, dismissing its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the plaint. The said application was preferred on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [“SARFAESI Act”].

A. FACTS

2. The transactions between the parties arise out of a loan agreement dated 24.12.2020 executed between the petitioner and late Mr. Mahavir Singh, as the primary borrower, alongwith his son, Mr. Gaurav Tanwar, and his wife, Ms. Roshni Devi, as co-borrowers [“the borrowers”]. The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, is the wife of late Mr.

Mahavir Singh and the mother of Mr. Gaurav Tanwar.

3. Under the said loan agreement, a sum of Rs.64,33,968/- was sanctioned, repayable in 144 monthly instalments of Rs.92,464/- each. The loan was secured by a mortgage created over an immovable property bearing No. WZ-144, measuring 83⅓ sq. yds. (37½ ft. × 20 ft.), with all roof rights, out of Khasra No. 1791, situated within the limits of Old Lal Dora, Village Naraina, New Delhi-110028 [“the suit property”].

4. Owing to persistent defaults in repayment, the petitioner classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset [“NPA”] on 08.05.2022 to the borrowers, and thereafter issued a demand notice dated 20.05.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

5. In response thereto, the borrowers submitted a representation in June 2022, inter alia contending that the loan was intended to be insured with Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”], and that the insurance premium had been handed over to the petitioner’s representatives. It was further alleged that, despite the same, no insurance policy was ever issued or received by them.

6. The petitioner rejected the borrowers’ representation vide communication dated 07.07.2022 and thereafter issued a possession notice dated 01.08.2022 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

7. In the meantime, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the civil suit, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 5, and four individuals were impleaded as defendants No. 1 to 4, described as “representatives/officers” of the petitioner.

8. The reliefs sought in the suit are as follows:

“(a) passing a decree/order of declaration that the acts of the defendants, i.e. i) presenting of ECS mandate of EMI amounting to Rs.92,464/- which was cleared on 07.01.2022 in the bank account of deceased husband of plaintiff; ii) issuing the letter dated 15.03.2022 thereby demanding the two outstanding EMI which were returned unpaid; iii) issuing of PRE SARFESAI Notice dated 18.04.2022; iv) declaring the loan account of borrower/plaintiff/husband of plaintiff as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 08.05.2022 and v) issuing of Notice dated 20.05.2022 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, are illegal and having no effects against the plaintiff, her son regarding mortgaged property bearing no. WZ-144, Khasra No.1791, Lal Dora of Naraina, near Pillar No.09, New Delhi- 110028;

(b) passing a decree/order of declaration that the there is no loan outstanding against the plaintiff in respect of loan account No.SLPHDLHI0001093 as the borrower/deceased husband of the plaintiff was insured against the loan liability