[2025:RJ-JP:48829]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2547/2021

1. Rajendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Nathuram Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 03, Balaji Vihar, Nayla Buj Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Guddi Devi Wife Of Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 03, Balaji Vihar, Nayla Buj Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur City Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Intigral Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Through Branch Manager/sales Officer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav with Mr. Rajendra Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Indresh Sharma with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ms. Shalini Yadav, Ms. Shivani Paliwal and Mr. S.N. Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

02/12/2025

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order and decree dated 08.01.2019 and execution order dated 24.01.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by Court of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jaipur.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 sanctioned loan of Rs.15,00,000/- on 96 installments of Rs.30,300/- each. The said loan was mortgage loan for his personal need against his plot Nos.3 and 11 situated at Balaji Vihar, Nayla Buj Road, Agra Road, Jaipur. The respondent No.2 mentioned 17.5% rate of interest and the each installment ought to be have of Rs.29,131/-, but, the respondent No.2 charged Rs.30,300/- per installment. Thus, the respondent No.2 have charged additional Rs.1,169/- in each and every installment paid to them. It is also contended that the actual disbursement of loan to the petitioners was of Rs.13,60,000/- out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. On submission of application for recovery of installment by respondent No.2 under Section 99, the concerned Court of Sub-Registrar Cooperative Society passed the impugned order dated 01.11.2018, imposing determining a due amount of Rs.13,50,888/- with interest component of Rs.18,122/- along with penal interest of 2%, thus, vide impugned order dated 01.01.2018 recovery of Rs.13,69,010/- was ordered against the petitioners.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 01.11.2018, the petitioners were granted time of 30 days to raise any objection. However, the petitioners could not raise the objection and recovery certificate was issued on 08.01.2013. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the recovery certificate dated 08.01.2019 was challenged before the Appellate Court i.e. Court of Registrar Cooperative Society. It is vehemently argued that the Appellate Court despite specific plea in the appeal memo did not decide the issue with regard to the margin money, thus, the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 suffers from illegality and perverse in nature. The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the statement of disbursement annexure 10, whereby, a margin money of Rs.1,13,420/- was not given to the petitioners. It is also contended that the respondents have illegally charged the interest on the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- without deducting the margin money of Rs.1,13,420/-. The respondents have admitted that the margin money of Rs.1,13,420/- was never disbursed. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2019, 24.01.2019 and 08.02.2021 may be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition and contended that the terms and conditions for granting loan was unequivocally admitted by the petitioners. The petitioners did not raise any objection, when the sanction letter was issued and in pursuant to the sanction letter, the loan amount was disbursed. The petitioners have first time raised the issue before the Appellate Court. The petitioners were well aware about the terms and conditions on which the loan was sanctioned. It is also contended that amount