Dismissed

Prem Lata and Anr. v. Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind Bank and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2013RSA/2329/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed against rejection of their suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for alleged fraud. The court upheld the lower court's decision, noting that vague fraud allegations without specific particulars do not override the bar on civil court jurisdiction under the SARFESI Act, thus dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; plaint return under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld.

Prem Lata and Anr. Vs Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RSA 2329/2013(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA 2329/2013(O&M) Date of decision:07/08/2013

¶5

Prem Lata and another

¶6

.............Appellants

¶7

¶8

Zonal Manager,Punjab and Sind Bank and others

¶9

.............Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr.Saurabh Bajaj,Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)

¶13

Appellants/plaintiffs are in second appeal against the concurrent judgements passed by both the courts below whereby on the application of the respondent bank under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was held to be not maintainable in view of Section 34 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the SARFESI Act).

¶14

It is averred that the petitioners/plaintiffs purchased a residential house vide sale deed dated 27.9.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.14 lacs. It is claimed that Rs.7 lacs were paid by the plaintiffs from their own funds whereas the other sum of Rs. 7 lacs wasJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.20 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶15

¶16

RSA 2329/2013(O&M)

¶17

raised as a loan from respondent no.1-Bank. It is averred that a secured loan was raised against mortgage of the purchased property with the help of respondent no.3-Jitender Kumar and Narinder Singh, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town,Karnal. It is stated that subsequently on 13.10.2008 the plaintiff was shocked to receive a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFESI Act, seeking possession of the mortgaged residential house due to repeated defaults of due instalments of loan for a sum of Rs.13.5 lacs. It is further asserted that the plaintiffs had never affixed her signatures on documents for a loan of Rs.13.5 lacs as her requirement was only for Rs.7 lacs. It was thus claimed that she is a victim of fraud committed by Jitender Kumar and Manager of the Bank. An FIR was also lodged against the said two persons. It is further stated that the aforesaid two persons have defrauded many other illiterate ladies of the area. Accordingly, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed. Both the courts below have accepted the plea of respondent bank by rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 in view of provisions of Section 34 of the SARFESI Act whereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is specifically barred.

¶18

Learned counsel, first of all, has not been able to explain as to how an appeal was maintainable against the orders rejecting the plaint. He, however, submits that wherever allegations of fraud are alleged then jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for theJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.20 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

¶20

¶21

RSA 2329/2013(O&M)

¶22

plaintiffs/appellants, I find that the learned trial court has, in view of provisions of Section 34 of the SARFESI Act, as interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 963 , rightly rejected the plaint and relegated the plaintiffs to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if so advised. There is no quarrel regarding the proposition that if the whole transaction is vitiated by fraud then the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts would not be barred. However, in the present case except a bald statement no particulars of the allegations of fraud have been specifically pleaded as mandated by the provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908. Thus, the plea of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts based on the allegations of fraud cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, I find no illegality or perversity in the approach of the learned trial court to return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

07.08.2013. joshi

¶25

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

¶26

Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.20 11:58 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.

Prem Lata and Anr. v. Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Lata and Anr. v. Zonal Manager Pb, & Sind Bank and Ors.

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

Bishop P.K.Samanta Rao & Ors. Vs Joshil Rai

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs Tejpal and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Khera Oil Tanker Service and Ors.

Amarpreet Singh Vs Mohinder Kaur

Bahajn Singh Vs Rajinder Singh

Harpreet Kaur @ Gurnam Kaur Vs Jaswinder Singh