ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. CANARA BANK BRANCH BODLA AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision a vexed and pristine question of law with respect to the maintainability of the civil suit for recovery of borrowed sum filed by the creditor bank against the debtor and security vis a vis the proceedings initiated by another creditor bank namely Allahabad bank against the same borrower for recovery of borrowed sum by invoking Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) is involved. The present revision is against the judgment and order dated 27th of April, 2010. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present applicant who is one of the defendants in the suit no.261 of 2008 has been rejected.

(2.) Canara Bank instituted suit no.261 of 2008 against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and also the Allahabad Bank on the allegations that Mata Prasad, father of the defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.2 who had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs on 26th of March, 2003 from the plaintiff bank after executing a housing loan agreement dated 7th of April, 2003 in favour of the plaintiff bank. It was agreed upon that the borrower will repay the amount in 180 equal monthly instalments along with interest. The borrower executed a letter evidencing the deposit of title deed dated 5th of April, 2003 along with registered sale deed dated 12th of November, 1974 and the property was mortgaged with the plaintiff bank and the bank has first charge on the said property. The borrower failed to repay the amount. The plaintiff bank came to know through newspaper dated 4th of April, 2008 that the Allahabad bank i.e. defendant nos.3 and 4 are going to sell the mortgaged property.

(3.) In the suit, a decree for recovery of Rs.6,30,590/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum with monthly rests against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severely claimed. In addition a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to sell the property in dispute by way of auction, transfer and alienation as also a preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 4 C.P.C has been claimed.