O R D E R

The 4^th and 6^th defendants in O.A.No.24 of 2010 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, are the petitioners before this Court.

2. The petitioners would state that they are, father and son respectively. The 1^st petitioner purchased the immovable property under a registered sale deed dated 31.08.1981. He availed a loan from the Tirupur Cooperative Housing Society, the 5^th respondent herein and subsequently, the said Society was amalgamated with the 1^st respondent.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner was in need of money for construction of building. On 03.01.2002, the 1^st petitioner approached his Auditor S.Murugan for availing loan facility. The said S.Murugan had facilitated the loan from the 1^st respondent bank. The loan was taken jointly with the 3^rd respondent firm as the 3^rd respondent was customer of the Auditor. However, the petitioners had no acquaintance of the respondents 3 to 5, prior to the availing of the loan. The said S.Murugan and respondents 4 and 5 had informed the 1^st petitioner that the loan could be secured only if the 1^st petitioner offered the property as collateral security.

4. The petitioners would submit that the 2^nd respondent is very well known to the said S.Murugan and taking advantage of the lack of education on the part of the 1^st petitioner and his inability to read and write the English language, the said S.Murugan in collusion with the respondents 2 to 5 have obtained the signature of the 1^st petitioner in several filled and unfilled papers. The 1^st petitioner who was in urgent need of the funds simply listened to his Auditor.

5. On 12.09.2002, the Auditor and the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th respondents, go an acknowledgment of receipt of Rs.1,35,000/- from the petitioner in favour of the 1^st respondent at Auditor's office. All the original documents title deeds were also handed over by the 1^st petitioner to the

2^nd respondent.

6. The petitioners would submit that the 1^st petitioner has also repaid the loan amount to the 1^st respondent in the presence of respondents 2, 4 and 5. When the 1^st petitioner asked for closure of the loan and the payment receipts, the said S.Murugan and respondents 2, 4 and 5 informed the petitioners that they would handover the documents only after completion of certain formalities.

7. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner had availed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

from the Tirupur Cooperative Housing Board Society, by way of a registered deposit of title deeds. While so, the 1^st petitioner received a notice under the SARFAESI Act, from the Cooperative Bank, SME Branch, Tirupur, stating that proceedings had been initiated against the

1^st petitioner for willful default.

8. The petitioners would submit that the loan account number was different from the loan account number under which the 1^st petitioner had availed the loan. It was only when he perused the notice he came to learn that the proceedings was with reference to the loan taken by the 3^rd respondent firm. He came to learn that the blank signed documents were utilised to show the 1^st petitioner as partner of the 3^rd respondent firm. Further, respondents 2, 4, 5 and the Auditor had availed loan from the 1^st respondent using the 1^st petitioner's original registered sale deed.

9. To cut a long story short, the 1^st respondent based on the above documents had instituted proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5. The petitioners would submit since the 1^st petitioner was suffering from ill health he was unable to attend the case at the time of argument. The petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 were set ex parte and an order was passed against the petitioners on 15.03.2024 in O.A.No.24 of 2010.

10. The petitioners would submit that fraud had been played upon them and their property brought in as a collateral security. Further, the 1^st petitioner had re-paid the entire loan amount despite which action has been taken against him. Therefore, t