CORPORATION BANK, REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER, BHUBANESWAR MAIN BRANCH Vs. SAILABALA PRADHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 31.3.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Angul in C.S.No.358 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, learned trial court has rejected the application of defendant no.11-petitioner for amendment of the cause title of the petitions under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

(2.) Plaintiff-Opposite party no.1 instituted the suit for partition and permanent injunction impleading the defendants-opposite party nos.2 to 11. By order dated 8.1.2015, learned trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants appeared. On the basis of a joint memo filed by the parties, learned trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property till disposal of the suit.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner-bank filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment stating inter alia that defendant nos.1, 6 and 10 had availed a loan from the bank and created equitable mortgage in respect of a part of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner-bank. The loan account became NPA. The bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). The bank obtained an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured assets. Before taking delivery of possession of the equitable mortgage of land and building, it received a letter from the District Officer, Angul that a civil suit is sub-judice, wherein the order of status quo has been passed. By order dated 18.7.2016, learned trial court allowed the application for impleadment. The petitioner has been impleaded as defendant no.11. The plaintiff filed C.M.P.No.1156 of 2016 before this Court, which was eventually dismissed. While matter stood thus, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of embargo contained in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The opposite party no.1 filed objection to the same.