MUSKAN & OTHERS vs ANIL CHAWLA & OTHERS

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

I.A.No.3581/2018

1.Present application has been filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the applicant-Federal Bank Ltd. for its impleadment. Â

2.In the present application, it has been stated that the suit property had been mortgaged with the applicant-Bank by deposit of title deeds. It is

further stated that though the applicant-Bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and taken over possession, yet the parties were

creating obstacles in the sale of the suit property by referring to the present proceedings. Â

3.In the opinion of this Court, the SARFAESI Act is an exhaustive Code in itself and in a partition suit, none of the parties can challenge the action

taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. This Court is also of the view that the Bank while taking action under the SARFAESI Act is not

concerned with the inter se rights of the debtor and his family members. It is further clarified that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides a

mechanism to challenge any action taken by a Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. If any party is aggrieved by any decision taken by

the applicant-Bank, it has the liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with the SARFAESI Act. Â

4.The Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 479 has held “....The civil Court in such circumstances has no

jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act

because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal.......We are of the view that the civil court jurisdiction is

completely barred, so far as the “measures†taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, against

which an aggrieved person has a right of appeal before the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal, to determine as to whether there has been any illegality in

the “measuresâ€​ taken.....â€​. Â

5.Consequently, it is clarified that neither the pendency of the present suit nor any order passed in the present suit would prejudice or interfere with the

right of the applicant-Bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act or under any other statute. Â

6.With the aforesaid observations and clarifications, the present application stands disposed of.

I.A.No.1286/2015

7.The ex parte ad interim injunction order 20th January, 2015 is confirmed till the disposal of the present suit. Â

8.Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.Â

I.A.No.1287/2015

9.In view of the order passed today, learned counsel for the plaintiffapplicant wishes to withdraw the present application.  Consequently, the same

is dismissed as withdrawn.Â

I.A.No.4434/2016

10.Present application has been filed for amendment of the plaint. Â

11.Keeping in view the liberal approach that has to be adopted with regard to the amendment application, the same is allowed without prejudice to the

rights and contentions of the defendants, who are given liberty to raise all their pleas and defences in the amended written statement. Â

12.Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 167/2015 & I.A.No.6055/2016

13.Let the amended plaint be filed within a period of four weeks. Â

14.The defendant no.1, who is personally present in Court, states that the matter be referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation

Centre. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has no objection to the same. Â

15.Consequently, with consent of the parties, the matter is referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The parties are

directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 20th April, 2018 at 4.00 P.M.

16.List the matter before the Court for reporting of settlement, if any, on 20th August, 2018.Â

 Â