Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Canara Bank And Others" on 2 March, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
02.03.2022 FA No. 54 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This First Appeal has been filed
against the judgment and decree dated
26.11.2021, passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original
Suit No.108 of 2018, "Sanjiv Sabbarwal
vs. Canara Bank and Others", whereby,
the Original Suit has been dismissed.
Heard Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Shobhit Joshi, the learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, the
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant - plaintiff
had filed the Original Suit No.108 of
2018 for declaration to the effect that
the impugned mortgage was illegal and
void. The learned counsel appearing for
the appellant further submitted that the
respondent nos.2 and 3 were the owners
of the property, who had agreed to sell
the same to the appellant for
Rs.10,00,000/- and out of which
Rs.5,00,000/- were paid by the appellant
to the said defendants in cash as earnest
money and simultaneously an agreement
to sell was executed on 18.01.2011.
According to which, the sale deed was to
be executed by 20.09.2011. The time
was extended. The respondent nos.2 and
3 in collusion and connivance of the
respondent no.1 - Bank had fraudulently
obtained a Cash Credit Limit Loan from
the respondent no.1 by keeping the said
property as security so as to the defraud
the appellant. The respondent no.1 -
Bank had not disclosed the date, month
and year of granting the said loan facility
to the respondent nos.2 and 3.
The learned counsel appearing for
the appellant argued that the learned
trial court has dismissed the original suit
of the appellant on the ground that the
said suit is barred under Section 34 of
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
The learned counsel appearing for
the appellant further submitted that the
impugned property is mortgaged with
the collusion of the respondent nos.2
and 3 and the respondent no.1 - Bank to
defraud the appellant and where fraud
was committed, the Civil Court has
jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of
his submission, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has relied
upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and
Others vs. Union of India and Others
(2004) 4 SCC 311.
The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1 - Bank submitted
that a settlement is going on between
the Bank and the private respondent
nos.2 and 3. According to him, the time
is granted to the respondent nos.2 and 3
for settlement till the month of April,
2022. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1 further submitted
that in case, One Time Settlement fails,
the respondent no.1 - Bank will be free
to auction the said mortgaged property.
The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.1 requested four
weeks' time to file objection(s) to the
Stay Application No.01 of 2022.
This First Appeal is admitted.
Issue notice to the respondent
nos.2 and 3. Steps to be taken within a
week.
In view of the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no.1 - Bank, list this case on
28.04.2022.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
02.03.2022
Pant/
