SHARANJIT SINGH Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 30.05.2014 dismissing his appeal by confirming the order of DRT dated 19.09.2013 in T.M.A. No. 01/2006. The writ petitioner had sought the setting aside of a final order dated 03.03.1997 whereby the first respondent bank's (hereinafter called as "IOB") application and mortgage claim was decreed.

(2.) The facts necessary for the purpose of disputes of the petitioner are that the petitioner was owner of 50% share of S -455, GK -I (hereinafter called as "suit property") which was jointly purchased with one Sh. Jai Narain Seth. In terms of the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1966 the said Sh. Seth originally owned the entire property but by the said sale deed conveyed 50% share to the petitioner. On 21.01.1989 the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Sh. Rajesh Khurana and sought permission of the competent authority and under Chapter XX(c), the registered sale deed was executed in favour of Sh. Rajesh Khurana vendee on 09.06.1989. In the meanwhile, a fact unbeknown to the petitioner, the suit property was ostensibly mortgaged by deposit of title deed with IOB. Concurrently, in July 1989 certain guarantees were allegedly executed by the petitioner. The IOB contended that the petitioner was guarantor and secured the property in favour of the borrower - M/s. General Auto Springs and its partner Rupender Singh represented here as respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter collectively referred as "borrowers"). The petitioner was served with the legal notice dated 15.02.1994, inter alia, when the IOB noticed the default in the repayment of dues by the borrowers. It is not in dispute that the petitioner denied having borrowed the amounts and responded accordingly by reply dated 07.04.1994. The IOB thereafter instituted proceedings in this Court claiming a decree for the outstanding amount. With the enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 the suit filed before this Court stood transferred to DRT. The DRT apparently issued notice to the concerned parties and thereafter issued the final order/mortgage decree on 03.03.1997. Concededly, the said decree is ex -parte. When the bank attempted to execute the recovery certificate, notice was served upon the petitioner in March, 2001. He alleges that he became aware of the adverse order and filed an application on 04.04.2001 seeking for an order to set aside the ex parte decree in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This application remained pending before the DRT for a considerably long time and eventually on 19.09.2013 it was dismissed.

(3.) It is also necessary at this stage to notice that in respect of the suit property certain other borrowers had availed facilities which became the subject matter of three suits (CS(OS) 1405 -1407/2011 Poonam Malhotra v/s. Union Bank of India) The plaintiffs in those proceedings also claimed that they were victims of a fraud played by third party who had deposited title deeds claiming to be the owner of the properties constructed upon the suit plot after its sale to Rajesh Khurana. After considering the materials on record, as well as the conduct of the bank - Union Bank of India, this Court decreed the suits in terms of a compromise whereby the bank agreed not to press its claims on certain agreed terms. The said judgement disposing the said proceedings - dated 06.02.2014 pertinently states as follows: