(1.) Appellant-bank/original defendant no.1 before the learned Trial Court has impugned the judgment dtd. 18/2/2020 [Hereinafter referred as "Impugned Judgement"] whereby its application under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as "CPC"] in a suit for declaration instituted by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3/ original plaintiffs [hereinafter collectively referred as "respondents"] against the appellant-bank and Union of India/respondent no.4 has been rejected and a judgment under Order XII rule 6, CPC has been pronounced against the appellant bank, in favour of the respondents.
(2.) Facts before us disclose that one Mr. Ajay Gupta [hereinafter collectively referred as "original borrower"] availed loan after mortgaging House No. H-208, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110052 [hereinafter referred as "property"] with the appellant-bank. As the said original borrower defaulted in repaying the loan, appellant-bank initiated proceedings under Sec. 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred as "SARFAESI ACT"] and after taking possession, issued notice for public auction. Respondents, vide e-auction dtd. 15/7/2016 bought the property for Rs.6,10,05,000.00 and deposited 25% of the bid amount alongwith the TDS of 1% from 15/7/2016 to 17/8/2016. Sale thereof was confirmed on 25/7/2016 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000.00 was to be paid within 15 days of the date of confirmation of sale i.e., by 10/8/2016.
(3.) Appellant-bank, Mayur Vihar Branch, after sanctioning loan of Rs.4,50,00,000.00 credited it to respondents on 9/8/2016. Thereafter, a Sale Certificate was issued in favour of respondents and the possession of the property was also handed over to them on 11/8/2016 itself. Meanwhile, the original borrower filed S.A. No. 265/2016 titled as Ajay Gupta vs. PNB before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi [Hereinafter referred as "DRT"], wherein, though the appellant-bank was restrained from creating any third-party interest in the property vide an order dtd. 8/9/2016 in the presence of learned counsel for appellant-bank, the DRT was neither apprised about the auction of property in favour of respondents nor about the issuance of Sale Certificate dtd. 9/8/2016 in their favour.