KIRANJIT SINGH BAWA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against orders dtd. 21/5/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") and dtd. 3/10/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") filed by respondent No. 1 for rejection of plaint, was allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant with his co-plaintiff Sonia Bawa, his wife, filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the bank") from taking forcible possession of property bearing No. 1, Palace Road, Kapurthala owned by plaintiff-appellant which was mortgaged with the respondent-bank for obtaining loan by M/s Ikaum Impex, a partnership concern of Sukhwinder Singh and Sonia Bawa. It is further argued that in the aforesaid firm, Sonia Bawa was partner to the extent of 80% and Sukhwinder Singh to the remaining 20% share. It is further argued that in view of allegations raised in para 4 of the plaint that Sukhwinder Singh in connivance with bank officials played fraud with the plaintiffs along with the fact that the plaintiffs lodged FIR No. 147 dtd. 24/5/2014 under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Kapurthala City initially against Sukhwinder Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Karnail Singh, Paramjit Singh and Gurwinder Singh Bajwa in which later the name of Sonal Gupta, Manager of the bank has also been added would prima facie reveal that there are allegations of fraud and forgery involved in the transaction making outstanding liability of the aforesaid firm to the extent of more than Rs.6.007 crores, therefore, it is only within the purview of civil court to determine rights of the parties, thus, jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred under Sec. 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act"). Counsel would further apprise the court that on due investigation of aforesaid FIR, challan has been presented in the court and Sonal Gupta, Manager of the bank has also been arrayed as one of the accused in the case. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Mardia Chemicals Limited etc. vs. Union of India and others etc. alongwith connected case 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 665 and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited vs. Hong Long and Shanghai Banking Corporation along with connected cases 2011(7) RCR (Civil) 95. Further reference has been made to judgments of this Court Jammu and Kashmir Bank vs. Jai Lakshmi Dravid 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 835, Punjab National Bank vs. Ram Kishan 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 115, Union Bank of India and another vs. Om Parkash Khurana Civil Revision No. 9060 of 2017 decided on 24/5/2018, Udaibir Singh vs. Punjab National Bank and others Civil Revision No. 4598 of 2016 decided on 13/12/2017 and judgment of the Delhi High Court Ritu Gupta vs. Usha Dhand and others 2013(46) RCR (Civil) 490 wherein the courts have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Mardia Chemicals Limited etc.'s case (supra).

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the paper book particularly the orders impugned and various annexures appended with the appeal.