MITHILESH KUMAR SAW Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to return Sale Deed no.1052 dated 25 th February, 2016 in original to the petitioner, which was mortgaged in favour of the respondent-bank for obtaining cash credit facility of Rs.10.00 lacs.

(2.) Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while taking the aforesaid cash credit facility vide Loan Account no.5366261000003, Binda Devi, mother of the petitioner stood as guarantor for repayment of the same by mortgaging registered Sale Deed no.1052 dtd. 25/2/2016 with respect to the land measuring an area of 7.25 decimals, being portion of plot no.121, Khata no.10, Mouja Hochar along with building situated over the same. On 9/10/2017, the aforesaid loan account of the petitioner was declared as "Non-Performing Asset" (NPA) by the respondent-bank. The respondent no.2, thereafter, issued a legal notice to the petitioner and his mother- Binda Devi on 27/11/2017 raising demand of Rs.6.89 lacs. Since the petitioner could not make the said payment, Certificate Case no.12(CB)/2018-19 was initiated against the petitioner on 29/8/2018 at the instance of the respondent-bank and a distress warrant was also issued against him on 19/12/2018 without following the mandatory provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Subsequently on 11/8/2021, the loan account was settled between the petitioner and the respondent-bank under 'One Time Settlement Scheme' at Rs.6.70 lacs, which the petitioner paid in full. The aforesaid cash credit account/loan account was accordingly finally settled. However, grievance of the petitioner is that despite settlement of the cash credit account/loan account in question, Sale Deed no.1052 dtd. 25/2/2016 mortgaged by the petitioner's mother with the respondent-bank has not been returned. The petitioner along with his mother visited the office of the respondent-bank several times for getting the said sale deed back, however, the same was not returned, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Pratyush Lala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank submits that the claim of the petitioner is required to be factually examined by the competent authority of the bank and, therefore, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.2, an appropriate decision will be taken within timeframe.