IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1951 of 2024(O&M)

Date of decision: 12.02.2026 INDIAN BANK CHD THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SH. NISHANT SHUKLA …….Petitioners.

V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAITHAL … Respondents [

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE Present: Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rakshit Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

CM-2152-CWP-2026 This application for placing on record the affidavit filed before the District Magistrate, Kaithal, and other relevant orders (Annexures P-9 to P-14) is considered and allowed.

Main Case

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/Bank challenging the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Kaithal u/s 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). One of the grounds taken by the petitioner/Bank is that the District Magistrate, Kaithal, while exercising powers u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, has gone into the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the borrower, which is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. Jain & Co. v.

Capital First Limited and Others, 2023 (1) SCC 675

2. It is now well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act is ministerial in nature, with no trappings of adjudication. Thus, merits of the dispute between the parties cannot be gone into.

3. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the District Magistrate, Kaithal, reveals that the District Magistrate has gone beyond the scope of jurisdiction by entering into merits of the dispute, as is evident from the various observations and findings recorded therein. The District Magistrate, Kaithal has gone to the extent of calling for and considering objections from a third party, a course of action which is not contemplated within the limited powers conferred upon District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant observations and findings recorded in the impugned order, demonstrating such jurisdictional overreach, are reproduced herein below:-

(i) When the loan was given by Allahabad Bank to M/s Ankit Sales Corporation against house No. MCK No./ID No. 30C179U162 area 500 square yards situated in the area of Tegbahadur Colony, Kaithal, then Mrs. Rajkumari was not the owner of the said house in the revenue records.

(ii) The mortgage of the said house was not even entered in the revenue records by Allahabad Bank. Because Late Mrs. Rajkumari was not the owner of the said house at that time in revenue record. Therefore, the revenue officers/employees were unable to enter the mortgage report in the revenue records as per the rules.

(iii) Presently, on 14.12.2022, Indian Bank again filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAEISI Act and requested to get possession of the said house and on 16.11.2022, Shri Vikram, son of Late Shri Lakhwinder Singh, resident of house no. 365/5 (Old and 460/12 (New) Guru Teg Bahadur Colony Karnal Road, Kaithal filed an application in this Court requesting that he lives on the ground floor of the said house on rent. Regarding which he and Vinod Malik From the year 2021, a claim No. 78/2021 and CI.S.No. 444/2021 is pending in the Honorable Civil Court Mr. Parmod Kumar Civil (Junior Division), Kaithal, in which the Honorable Court has issued a restraining order regarding forceful eviction of him from the said house.

(iv) In paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit attached with the application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it has been written by the bank that there is no tenant on the said house. Whereas Vikram Singh son of Shri Lakhwinder Singh is living as a tenant on the ground floor of the house and the dispute between him and Vin