SYNDICATE BANK AND ANR. Vs. SITA RAM PITTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 23.3.15 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 342/11, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner-Syndicate Bank extended credit facility to M/s. Murlidhar Sitaram. Smt. Manjulata mortgaged her property situated at Nahata Sukhani Mohalla, Bikaner and created security interest in favour of the petitioner Bank. On account of failure of the loanee in repayment of loan, the petitioner Bank, a secured creditor, proceeded to enforce the security interest under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the SRFAESI Act "). The mortgaged property was taken possession of and put to auction. The respondent-plaintiff being the highest bidder for Rs. 22,00,000/-, the auction was knocked down in his favour and he deposited 25% of the sale price amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- with the petitioner Bank. Thereafter, the Bank confirmed the sale and demanded the balance amount a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/-. The respondent-plaintiff was required to deposit the balance amount latest by 6.9.07. The amount was not deposited by the respondent-plaintiff alleging defects in the title of the property. Ultimately, on failure of the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the amount, the petitioner Bank proceeded to forfeit the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- deposited by the respondent plaintiff.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur I, Jaipur, which stood rejected vide order dated 15.9.08. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the respondent plaintiff before the State Consumer Forum was allowed and the petitioner Bank was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- deposited by him along with interest @ 8% from the date of deposit till the repayment thereof. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner Bank preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer Forum. The National Consumer Forum while relying upon its various earlier decisions holding that in absence of arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties, complaint before Consumer Forum is not maintainable, allowed the appeal vide order dated 4.1.10 and while setting the order passed by the State Consumer Forum, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, rejecting the complaint was restored. It is informed that aggrieved thereby, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondent-plaintiff stood rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.