HDFC LIMITED Vs. GURPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein claims to be a secured creditor. Smt.Indu Devi mortgaged the property in favour of the petitioner on 18/4/2013 in order to secure the repayment of the debt. Since there was default in the repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner recalled the entire debt vide notice dtd. 28/1/2017. Subsequently, on 16/2/2017, notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act') was also issued to Smt. Indu Devi.

(2.) Sh.Gurpinder Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. He claimed an agreement to sell dtd. 25/5/2015 of the secured assets in his favour. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.2. An application filed by the petitioner for the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') in view of Sec. 34 of the 2002 Act has been dismissed on the ground that the Debt Recovery Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief of specific performance. In fact, the order passed by the trial Court is a non-speaking order, which reads as under:-

(3.) Further, Sec. 17 of the 2002 Act reads as under:-