STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. KARANVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.9.2005 whereby the petitioner- bank was restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property as well as the order in appeal affirming the said order.

(2.) ON Kalawanti executed equitable mortgage in favour of the bank in the year 2000-01. Since the principal borrower i.e. Ram Lal Pawan Kumar Rice Mills failed to make payment of the dues of the bank, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was issued on 20.11.2003. Since no objection was filed after the issuance of the notice, another notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued and thereafter the bank has taken possession of the secured assets. Notices were issued to Smt. Kalawanti deceased through her legal heirs.

(3.) THE rights of the plaintiffs are derived through a consent decree dated 12.1.1995. Admittedly, it is Kalawanti who has executed equitable mortgage in favour of the bank after the decree dated 12.1.1995 was suffered by Kalawanti in favour of the plaintiffs. Smt. Kalawanti has not disclosed the said judgment and decree to the bank. The said judgment and decree could be said to have confer right in favour of the plaintiffs who are the grandsons of Smt. Kalawanti on the basis of decree, which has not been registered and not binding on third person. The remedy of the plaintiffs, if any, against the proceedings under the Act was by filing objections under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act or filing an application under Section 17 of the Act. Having failed to do so, the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be invoked as the same is expressly barred under Section 34 of the Act.