Syndicate Bank & Anr. vs . Sita Ram Pitti on 8 July, 2015

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Syndicate Bank & Anr. vs . Sita Ram Pitti on 8 July, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioner- Syndicate Bank submits that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which was filed against the suit filed by the auction purchaser, Sita Ram Pitti, under Section 17 (4) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2002'), which application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on the ground that said auction purchaser was also covered by the definition of "any person" under Section 17 (1) of the said Act of 2002 and, therefore, if he was aggrieved by any action with regard to the auction taking place under Section 17 (4) of the Act of 2002, then he could approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not the civil court by filing civil suit, which is barred under Section 34 of the said Act of 2002. The learned court below while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has relied upon the judgment of Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s Rose Valley Real Estate and Construction Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 (Gau.) 38.

Mr. K.L. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.86/2015 Syndicate Bank & Anr. Vs. Sita Ram Pitti Interim order dated 08/07/2015 (Wednesday) 2 of 2 case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported in 2010 (8) SRJ 406 and in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) NIJ 21 (SC) and submitted that civil suit by the auction purchaser seeking refund of amount of initial deposit which was forfeited by the Bank because although the auction purchaser initially paid 1/4th of his Bid, however, he failed to pay remaining 3/4th amount within the stipulated period of fifteen days and such a civil suit was not maintainable before the civil court as barred by Section 34 of the Act.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks.

Office is directed to give notice 'Dasti' to the counsel for the petitioners, to be sent by registered AD post directly by the counsel for the petitionrs, and will not be sent to the concerned Dist. Judge. Direct service permitted.

Counsel to file proof of service on the respondent and not merely proof of despatch of notices, before the next date positively.

Meanwhile, the further proceedings in Civil Suit No.342/2011-Sitaram Pitti Vs. Syndicate Bank & Anr., pending before the court of learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Bikaner shall remain stayed.

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

DJ/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur