PARASMAL Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil First Appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 11/5/2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court), whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.), read with Ss. 17, 34, and 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act), was allowed, and consequently, Civil Original Suit No. 08/2023 (CIS No. 25/2023), titled Parasmal and Ors. v. Prakash Chandra and Ors., was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that the appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants Nos. 1 to 19 are close relatives. The suit property situated at Pabu Chowk, Nai Line, Gangashahar, District Bikaner, is a pattasuda property belonging to late Shri Pannalal Marothi, who had five sons and one daughter, namely, Deepchand, Trilokchand, Kisturchand, Bhanwarlal, Jaskaran, and Jassudevi. Each descendant was entitled to a one-sixth share in the property. However, since Shri Trilokchand died issueless, the remaining descendants became entitled to an equal one-fifth share each in the property. The appellants-plaintiffs are the sons of Smt. Jassudevi, the daughter of late Shri Pannalal Marothi.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that when the respondents-defendants Nos. 1 to 19 refused to give the appellants-plaintiffs their due share in the suit property on the pretext that the same had been mortgaged with respondent-defendant No. 20, i.e., the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, the appellants-plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for partition before the learned trial Court.