RAM KUMAR Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 16122/2006 (u/s 5 of the Limitation Act) The delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of. FAO 377-78/2006 1. Both the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court have handed down a verdict that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Adumberated in brief, the case of the appellants is this. Appellants purchased a property comprising of ground floor measuring 87 square yards approximately, bearing No. 11/4-A(l) Tilak Nagar, for a consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/- from respondent No. 1 after appellant was assured that the property is free from all encumbrances or charges etc. The agreement was also executed in this regard. In the meantime, it transpired on 19.4.2005 that respondent No. 1 had taken loan from Citi Bank, respondent No. 2 against the hypothecation of suit property. In their written statement the bank, respondent No. 2 made the following averments. The respondent No. 1 entered into a loan agreement with the respondent No. 2 bank in the month of March 2002 and took loan in the sum of Rs. 29,00,000/- against the entire property No, 11/4-A(l) Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The said borrower undertook to ' repay the said loan in 84 MMRS of Rs. 56778/- each and handed over the title deed of the said property to the bank. The respondent No. 1 did not adhere to the financial discipline towards the repayment of the said loan and hence the legal action was initiated against him.

(2.) It is averred that the plaintiffs/appellants are bonafide purchasers of the suit property and have sought the relief of permanent injunction against respondent No. 2, restraining respondent No. 2 or their officials from attaching the suit property of the appellants or from dispossessing them from the suit property.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellants. He did not pick up a conflict with the fact that the suit property was mortgaged with Giti Bank, respondent No. 2 for the loan granted to respondent No. 1. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants has three prongs. Firstly, the appellants are a third party and cannot approach the D.R.T because they are neither the borrowers nor have concern with the bank. Again, they are not privy to contract with the bank. Secondly, they are bonafide purchasers. Lastly they did not receive the loan and loan was received by respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant could not draw the attention of the Court to any provision which may come to the rescue of the appellants.