IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-3638-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 29.08.2025 Kanwalbir Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Bank of Baroda & Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 01.05.2018 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the plaint of the revisionist/plaintiff was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Brief Facts

2. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff/revisionist instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that she is neither a borrower nor a guarantor of M/s Petals Textile and has never mortgaged her property measuring 410 sq. yds. situated at Shamsher Avenue, Barewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana with Bank/respondent No.1 and that she has never availed any loan facility from defendant No. 1 (Bank of Baroda) on the strength of the aforesaid property and for declaration that defendants No. 1 to 5 have no concern whatsoever with the property. A further declaration was sought that any sale letter, if issued by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5 Gursewak Lal, in respect of the property, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff’s rights, along with a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 6 (Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana) from executing any sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 presented by defendant No.1 on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.

3. The plaint alleged that the petitioner/plaintiff never approached the Bank or its officers. Defendant No. 2 brought defendant No. 4 to her house. Both assured petitioner/plaintiff that they would arrange a housing loan for her and got some blank papers signed from her and asked for the original sale deed, which the petitioner/plaintiff handed over, believing defendant No. 2 as father of defendant No. 3 was a close friend of her son. On inquiring subsequently about the housing loan, defendants No. 2 and 3 told her that, as she was not running any business, she would be unable to show repayment capacity and, therefore, the Bank had refused the loan. The plaint further averred that last month the petitioner/plaintiff learnt that one Shivraj Singh, who has filed a suit as tenant of the property had mortgaged the property with defendant No. 1 and that the Bank had already issued a sale letter and was trying to take possession from Shivraj Singh, presently in possession. The plaint alleged fraud and connivance by the defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff asserted that she never availed any loan, never stood guarantor for defendants No.

2 and 3 and never mortgaged the property.

4. Upon notice, defendant No. 2 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. Defendant No. 5 also filed a separate application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The applications contended that the petitioner/plaintiff had concealed material facts. In fact defendants No. 2 and 3, as partners of M/s Petals Home Textiles Manufacturing Company had availed credit facilities from defendant No. 1-Bank of Baroda, Sunder Nagar Branch, Ludhiana from time to time and had sought enhancement of cash-credit limits for machinery. They undertook to execute security documents in favour of the Bank. The property was agreed to be mortgaged along with the plaintiff, who joined as continuing guarantor and created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds i.e. original sale deed dated 27.10.2010 and executed the relevant security documents. It was pleaded that after availing the facility, the borrowers’ account turned irregular and they were declared Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 20.10.2014. Thereafter, notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon the petitioner/plaintiff as well as defendants No. 2 and 3 and upon failure to