BANK OF BARODA Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-petitioner is before this Court impugning the order dated 10.6.2013 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by it under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner-bank is that it granted over draft limit of Rs. 1 lac to Pawan Kumar in the name of M/s Singla Kiryana Store in the year 2002. The over draft limit was increased from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 2 lac in the year 2003. Immovable property situated within the municipal limit of Kaithal was mortgaged as security for the loan. As the amount was not repaid, the petitioner-bank proceeded to take action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') for taking over and sale of the mortgaged property. Notice for possession under Section 13 of the Act was issued on 9.5.2013. It was thereafter that the respondent filed the suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner-bank from interfering in possession of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit property, which was admittedly mortgaged with the petitioner-bank. It was on the plea that the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the property as a tenant for the last 40-50 years.

(3.) After notice in the suit, the petitioner filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the learned Court below. The order has been impugned in the present petition.