Dismissed

Shamsul Hasan Khan v. Punjab National Bank

DRT28 Jan 2026SA/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application to quash an auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application was barred by limitation and lacked merit, noting the High Court had previously observed that a lesser area of the mortgaged property was sold than claimed by the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application SA 111 of 2024 dismissed with costs.

Shamsul Hasan Khan versus Punjab National Bank — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2026)

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

DRT. PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer :Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 111 of 2024

¶7

Shamsul Hasan Khan, son of Late Qamal Hassan Khan, Resident of Mohalla - White House Compound, Road No.3, P.S. Rampur. Town, District – Gaya. (Aggrieved party other than borrower guarantor or mortgagor)

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra, Rai Kashinath More, Gaya.

¶11

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rai Kashinath More, Gaya

¶12

Mansarool Hassan Khan. son of Qumrul Hassan Khan. resident of village – Shadeo Khap, P.S. Bodh-Gaya, present at White House Compound, Road No.3,P.S.Rampur. District – Gaya, Pin Code 823001. (Borrower) .

¶13

Nikhat Jahan, wife of Mansarool Hussan Khan. resident of Village Khap, P.S. – Bodh-Gaya, present at White House Compound, Road No.3, P.S. Rampur. District – C;aya, Pin Code 823001. (Guarantor).

¶14

Sajjad Hussain, son of Mubarak Hussain, resident of Mohalla – White House Compound, Road No.4, P.S. Rampur, District – Gaya. (Auction Purchaser).

¶15

--respondents

¶16

Present

¶17

For the Applicant	:Sh. Satish Nr. Sinha. Advocate
For the Respondent Bank:Sh.	Arvind Kumar,Advocate
For the RespondentNo.3& 4	:Sh. Nand KishoreSingh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5	:Sh. Animesh Ranjan, Advocate

¶18

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the auction

DRT, PATN A

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

sale held on 07.10.2021 to the extent of shares belonging to the applicant. Alongwith above applicant, the applicant has filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 210/2024 for condonation of delay.

¶26

The brief fact of the case is that the respondent no. 3 & 4 availed Credit facilities to the tune of Rs.40 lacs from the respondent bank and mortgaged the property towards security of the loan. Due to default in repayment of dues of the bank, the accounts were classified as NPA on 16.04.2018. Subsequently, the respondent bank initiated SARFAESI action by issuing Demand Notice dated 06.06.2018 u/s 13(2) of the act calling upon to make the payment of Rs.z,6,59,013/-. Thereafter, the respondent took possession of the property by issuing Possession Notice dated 05.01.2019 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, the property was put on auction sale by issuing auction sale notice dated 04.09.2021 fixing the date of auction sale on 07.10.2021. Accordingly, the property was auctioned and sold to the respondent no. 5 Sujjad Hussain being the highest bidder. Aggrieved from the Sale held on 07.10.2021, present SA has been filed by the applicant alongwith limitation petition.

¶27

On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel of applicant that the applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor and he is an aggrieved person. It is further submitted that no notice issued under SARFAESI Act has been served upon the applicant. After paper publication of possession notice dated 30.09.2022 and subsequently physical possession, the applicant moved before Hon'ble High Court of Patna which was withdrawn by the applicant and direction was given to the applicant to move before this DRT for its redressal. Before the applicant on receipt of reply on 27.08.2020 of legal notice, the applicant was under presumption that bank is not going to take any action against his property as it was categorically replied that the property/house covered by the sale deed no. 1919 of the applicant has been mistakenly advertised for auction sale and will exclude the share of applicant from auction sale. It is prayed

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

DRT, PATN A

that the delay may be condoned.

¶32

It is further submitted by the L_d. Counsel of applicant that the applicant is co-owner of the property in question and he has never mortgaged or executed loan documents with the respondent bank towards loan in question. The property was put on e–auction having a total area of 4.60 decimal, consisting the Sale Deed No. 3195/1993 and Sale Deed No. 1919/1994. The property bearing Deea No. 1919 was purchased by the applicant and respondent no.3 in \which share of the applicant has described as 1 anna 5 pie i.e. 723.13 sq. ft and one pIe i.e. 42.53 sq. ft belong to the respondent no.3. The respondent bank with connivance with the borrower i.e. respondent no.3 has mortgaged the entire sale deed by registered mortgage on 21.03.2016 against the loan sanctioned to borrower while the borrower has not having absolute right over the property. After getting knowledge of the rnortgage, the applicant had sent legal notice to the respondent bank which was replied by the- counsel of respondent bank that the share of the applicant has been mistakenly advertised for auction sale and the same will be excluded from auction sale but entire property has been auction sold on 07.10.2021 by the bank vide sale notice. The applicant had approached Hon'ble High Court vide CWJC No. 20338 of 2021 which was disposed of on 24.02.2922. Against the physical possession, the applicant had further moved before Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide CWJC No.16817 of 2022 which was disposed of on 14.03.2023 with the liberty to move before this Tribunal. Accordingly. the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing Intervener Petition in the SA 126/2021 which was filed by the borrower, respondent no.3 but this Ld. The Tribunal rejected the Intervener application on the basis of wrong submissiorl made by respondent 'bank regarding partition and preparation of map of plot between the parties. The applicant has also filed a Partition Suit No.280/2021 before the Sub Judge-1, Gaya which is pending and respondent bank is also one the party in the matter. It is prayed that

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

DRT, PATN A

the SARFAESI Action initiated against the share of applicants may be quashed.

¶37

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that present application is barred by law of limitation and not any valid reason has been explained in its limitation petition. It is further submitted that earlier the applicant had filed IA 383/2022 in SA 126/2021 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 05.01.2024 with the observation that “the dispute raised by the Intervener applicant has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court and an observation has been made that the share of the Shamsul Hassan Khan was not sold and transferred to the auction purchaser. that was separated earlier, Specifically plotted in the map over which parties have put their signatures. Hence there remains no case of the intervener applicant to be adjudged by this Tribunal. As the share of the intervener applicant was already separated and left untouched according to the map admitted by the parties, it appears that the present intervener with rnalafide intention wants to help the borrower by getting re-open the concluded SARFAESI action. Accordingly, the IA 383/2022 has no force and is dismissed”. The respondent bank has neither sold the property of the applicant nor taken physical possession. The applicant is still residing in the property. This application has been filed to provide illegal assistance to the defaulted borrower of the respondent bank. The applicant had filed CWJC No.20338 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of on 24.02.2022 with the observation that “Even according to the petitioner, the total lands in two sale deed were 2003.76 Sq. ft which was mortgaged with the bank, however, on objection being raised by the petitioner 1431 sq. ft. of land has been auction sold and possession handed over to the auction purchaser as such, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage when SARFAESI proceeding has concluded. The writ petition is. accordingly, disposed of." The applicant has also filed CWJC No.16817

/p\

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

DRT, PATN A

of 2022 but the same was surprisingly withdrawn by the applicant on 14.03.2023 without making any arguments. The present application is also hit by Res Judicata. The applicant is also placing wrong fact before this Tribunal that the Partition Suit is pending before SubJudge-1, Gaya while the partition was filed amount applicant and his brothers Mansarool Hassan Khan, Mazharul Hassan Khan and Zulffiquar Hassan Khan took place in year before 2011.

¶43

Ld. Counsel of the respondent no.5 auction purchaser submitted that auction purchasers that the auction purchasers bonafidely participated in the auction sale held on 07.10.2021 against the sale notice dated 04.09.2021 for the property in question and was declared successful bidder with the bid amount of Rs.81,00.000/-. Further, the auction purchaser deposited the entire amount on 21.10.2021 i.e. within time. After receipt of the entire payment, the respondent bank issued a Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. The physical possession of the property has also been handed to the auction purchaser with the help of District Administration. The applicant and his brother have also filed several compliant cases against the Bank officials as well as against the auction purchaser and his family member.

¶44

1 have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶45

Before entering into controversy let us examine whether the present application was filed within the period of limitation or it is beyond the limitation that requires any kind of condonation of delay. The present application has been filed on 22.03.2024. In the present matter the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No.20338 of 2021 vide order date 24.02.2022 has already held that SARFAESI Proceeding has concluded therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, the delay cannot be condoned.

¶46

So far as allegation raised regarding the sale of share of applicants in mortgaged property is concerned, on perusal of auction sale notice UP \

SA 111 of 2024 IJI

DRT. PATN A

as well as sale certificate it appears that the auction sale notice was issued for the property having area of 4.60 decimal (approx 2003 square feet) while the sale certificate has been issued for only 1431 square feet only.

¶51

The area of property is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the CWJC 20338 of 2021 filed by applicant Shamsul Hussan Khan observed that “Even according to the petitioner, the total lands in two sale deeds were 2003.76 Sq. Ft, which was mortgaged with the Bank, however. on objection being raised by the petitioner 1431 Sq. Ft. of land has been auctioned, and possession handed over to auction purchaser as such. no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage when SARFAESI proceeding has concluded." As observed by Hon’ble High Court, it is not against the applicant’s interest if a lesser area of the mortgaged property is sold

¶52

In view of the above discussion, the present application has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The application SA 111 of 2024, is dismissed with costs.

¶55

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶56

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶57

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open £o_urt

¶58

O n t h i S 2 8 t h D a y 0 f J a n U a r y 1 2 0 2 6 a \ / A 6 &

¶59

[KaushalendraYada v]

¶60

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Shamsul Hasan Khan v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsul Hasan Khan v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh