BASAVARAJU Vs. POORNIMA S R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are disposed of together by this common judgment as the issues involved are one and the same. The order passed on LA. No. 1 by the Trial Court rejecting the said I.A. and directing the appellants to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal is called in question by the plaintiffs in these appeals.

(2.) The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants Sri P.N. Hegde is that the respective appellants are the tenants in the suit schedule properties and they found respondent 2-Bank having affixed notice on the premises indicating that possession will be taken over by the Bank following the first defendant having failed to repay the loan obtained by him from the second defendant-Bank. In the suit filed for bare injunction, the respective appellants filed I.A. No. 1 seeking an order of temporary injunction against the respondents. The Trial Court dismissed the said I.A. on the footing that the remedy lies before the Deputy Recovery Tribunal by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant had interim order in their favour during the pendency of the suit and subsequently, when I.A. No. 1 was heard and when it came to be rejected, the respondent-Bank took possession of the respective suit properties by forcibly throwing out the tenants i.e., the plaintiffs, despite their belongings were still found in the respective suit properties. Relying on a ruling of this Court in the case of Hutchison Essar South Limited, Bangalore v. Union Bank of India and Anr., 2008 3 KarLJ 16 , the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that, if a bona fide third party is in occupation of the secured asset, the Bank in question is not entitled to dispossess such a person without taking recourse to law. Hence, the order of the Trial Court be modified and the appellants be put back in possession of the respective suit schedule properties till the appellants approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by way of appeals.