Jharkhand High Court
Sardar Jasbir Singh vs Uco Bank on 6 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2138 of 2019
Sardar Jasbir Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, Main Road Branch, Ranchi
2. Sunil Kumar Tiwary
3. Md. Mabassir Ahmad Ansari
4. Zunaid Ahmed Ansari
5. Modassir Ahmed Ansari
6. Bijay Kumar
7. Khalid Ahmad Ansari
8. Mohan Pandey
9. Baidya Nath Singh
10. Santosh Kumar Verma
11. Manish Kumar
12. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi ..... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 1789 of 2019
Sunil Kumar Tiwary ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, Main Road Branch, Ranchi
2. Sardar Jasbir Singh
3. Smt. Prakash Kaur
4. Md. Mobassir Ahmad Ansari
5. Zunaid Ahmed Ansari
6. Modassir Ahmed Ansari
7. Bijay Kumar
8. Khalid Ahmad Ansari
9. Mohan Pandey
10. Baidya Nath Singh
11. Santosh Kumar Verma
12. Manish Kumar
13. The Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Krishna
[In W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019]
Mr. Indrajit Sinha
[In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019]
For Respondent No.7: Mr. A. K. Das
[In W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019]
For the Bank: Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad
-----
06/06.01.2025 The present writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order dated
29.03.2019 [Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 2138/2019] passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal (T) No. 113/2013 whereby the
appeal preferred by Sunil Kumar Tiwary [the respondent No.2 of W.P.(C) No.
2138/2019] against the entire process of auction purchase has been rejected on
the ground that the mutation of the property in question has been illegally done
in favour of the auction purchasers.
2. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.
2138/2019, submits that a supplementary affidavit dated 05.07.2024 has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner in the said case bringing on record a copy of the
judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in
M.A. No. 14/2013 whereby ex-parte preliminary decree dated 06.06.2000 and
final decree dated 12.01.2004 with all consequential benefits have been set
aside. A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-S/1 to the
said supplementary affidavit. It is thus submitted that further cause of action
pursuant to passing of the aforesaid ex-parte preliminary and final decree no
more survives.
3. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 of W.P.(C) No.
2138/2019, though does not dispute the existence of the judgment dated
27.09.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013,
however, submits that the respondent No.7 was not a party in the said case.
Moreover, at present the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in
question pursuant to the auction sale.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners of both the cases jointly submit that if
at all the respondent No.7 is in possession of the land in question, the said
possession is unlawful, particularly, in view of the judgment dated 27.09.2022
passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A. No. 14/2013.
5. Be that as it may. Since after passing of the judgment dated 27.09.2022
in M.A. No. 14/2013, the issue raised in the present writ petitions has become
academic in nature, there is no need to further proceed in the present matters.
6. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7. The petitioners are however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as
provided under law for redressal of their respective subsisting grievances, if any.
8. Consequently, I.A. No. 5673/2019 [In W.P.(C) No. 1789/2019] also
stands disposed of.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
