IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 6 OF DECEMBER, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 5750 of 2024 CANARA BANK Versus SMT. RAKHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aditya Veer Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.05.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.09 of 2024 by the Third District Judge, Chhatarpur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant No.4 was dismissed and the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in RCSA No.204A of 2022 by the Third Civil Judge Senior Division, Chhatarpur whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been entertained and the learned trial Court has directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute.

2. The case of the petitioner/defendant No.4 is that the petitioner is a banking company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business of banking as a banking company constituted under the Banking Companies Act (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at Office No.112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru and Circle Office at Bhopal amongst other at Jabalpur and a branch office amongst other at Chattarpur, District Chattarpur. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit in the year Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL

2022 impleading respondents No.2 to 4 as defendants before learned Third Civil Judge Senior Division, Chattarpur. Subsequently, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has been filed and the petitioner has been impleaded as respondent No.4 in the civil suit. The civil suit was filed by respondent th No.1/plaintiff for declaration of 1/4 share in the property of her late father pointing out the fact that her father passed away in the year 2006. Now, the respondent No. 2 wants to sell the property in question. It is further submitted that she has not claimed any relief against present respondents No. 3 & 4 but as they are necessary party to the suit, they were impleaded. At a later stage, respondent No.1/plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC before the learned trial Court stating that she came to know that respondent No.2 has mortgaged the property in question with the petitioner/defendant No.4 and has secured a loan against the said property. It is argued that the property in question th could not have been mortgaged as she has 1/4 share in the property. The reply of the said application was filed by the petitioner as well as other defendants. The petitioner has contended therein that the contentions are totally baseless. The property in dispute was mutated in the name of respondents No.2 to 4 way back in the year 2008 and despite having knowledge about the said mutation, respondent no.1/plaintiff did not take any action for long time. The respondents No.2 to 4 being the rightful owners of disputed property have signed a registered mortgage deed in favour of present petitioner/defendant No.4 and had mortgage the said property as a guarantee towards the loan granted in their favor. The respondent No.2 has obtained a probate order dated 06.08.2008 in his favour on the basis of the Will dated 22.09.2006. Vide order dated 06.08.2008 the same was affirmed by the learned District Judge, Chattarpur. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has chosen not to challenge the aforesaid order, hence, the same has attained Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL finality and the disputed property has finally vested with respondents No.2 to 4. It is further contended that the account of the respondent No.2 was declared as non performing asset on 29.01.2023 and subsequently in terms of the Securitization and Reconstruction .Of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act') necessary action has been taken aga