V. GEETHA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness and legality of a portion of the order (Annexure-D) dtd. 4/3/2022 passed in S.A.No.132/2013 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Bangalore, by which the petitioner's application I.A.No.1284/2019 for impleading is rejected.

(2.) Heard Sri. Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property bearing No.Old Panchayat Khata No.76 and Bommanahalli Katha No.86, presently bearing Katha No.93/86/86 situated at Jaraganahalli Village, Konanakunte Sub Division of BBMP belonged to petitioner's father, who had purchased the same through registered sale deed dtd. 22/3/2003. Thereafter, father of the petitioner had gifted the Northern side of the schedule property to an extent of 460 Square Feet measuring East to West 23 feet, North to South 20 feet in favour of the petitioner under registered gift deed dtd. 6/9/2007. Since then the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. One Sri Vasuki had availed loan of Rs.21.00 lakhs on depositing the title deeds of the schedule property after purchasing the schedule property from the brother of the petitioner. A Civil suit in respect of the property in O.S.No.25844/2011 for partition was decreed on 28/2/2019 granting 1/5th share to the plaintiffs therein. The 1st respondent-Union Bank of India (for short 'the Bank') to realize the dues from Vasuki, who had offered the schedule property as security initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act 2002 (for short 'the 2002 Act'). The tenant of the property one Sri M. Venkateshappa had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.132/2018 challenging the action taken by the 1st respondent-Bank against the schedule property. In the said S.A.No.132/2018 the petitioner had filed impleading application I.A.No.1284/2018 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. By order dtd. 4/3/2022 S.A.No.132/2018 was dismissed, consequently the petitioners impleading application also came to be dismissed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity.