RAGHAVAN MURALIDHARAN Vs. LYNDON CHRISTOPHER ANGELO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.Hanumantharayappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Nirmala Suresh for petitioners and Sri.Yogesh Kumar.U.S., learned counsel appearing for third respondent/Caveator. Parties are referred to as per rank in the trial Court.

(2.) Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.3307/2014 and respondents are defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in question i.e., O.S.No.3307/2014 to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to repay lease amount with interest from the date of filing of suit till its realization and to declare that plaintiffs are entitled to continue in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till repayment of lease amount and also for perpetual injunction to restrain the third defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of property.

(3.) Third defendant having been notified in the suit, has appeared, filed the written statement and contested the suit. An exparte order of temporary injunction was granted by trial Court restraining third defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Said order was questioned by the third defendant Bank before this Court in W.P.Nos.38308-309/2014 and by order dated 07.08.2014 it came to be dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for opposing extension of interim order of temporary injunction. It is thereafter the order of temporary injunction came to be vacated and subsequently third defendant Bank after obtaining appropriate orders from the jurisdictional Magistrate Court as required under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short) has taken possession of the suit schedule property i.e., which was in occupation of plaintiffs. This necessitated the plaintiffs to file an application under Section 144 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for a direction to third defendant to restore possession of the property by putting plaintiffs in possession of the same. Said application came to be opposed by the bank and after considering rival contentions Court below by the impugned order dated 07.10.2014, Annexure-K has dismissed the application for restitution on the ground that secured creditor has obtained the possession as per order passed by X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.06.2014 in Crl.Misc.No.50083/2014.