Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against order dt. 7.1.12 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order dt. 22.12.11 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Girwa, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC, seeking temporary injunction against the respondent -I.D.B.I., stands dismissed. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that he obtained loan of Rs. 9,40,000/ - from the Bank of Baroda while mortgaging his property, a house, purchased by him from one Shri Murli Manohar, who had purchased the same from one Shri Pradeep Kumar. It was averred that the petitioner had never taken any loan from I.D.B.I., however, the proceedings were initiated by it under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"), allegedly for recovery of the outstanding dues of Shri Pradeep Kumar, the predecessor -in -title of the petitioner. It was averred that while purchasing the property, the petitioner had obtained all original documents from the seller and the loan was advanced by the Bank of Baroda, after verification of the original documents, which are presently lying in its custody.
(2.) The petitioner also preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction against the I.D.B.I. not to take any proceedings in respect of the disputed property and not to disturb the use and occupation of the property by the petitioner in any manner and to maintain the status quo in respect thereof.
(3.) The application was contested by the I.D.B.I. by filing a reply thereto. The categorical stand taken on behalf of the I.D.B.I. is that the documents on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming ownership over the disputed property are forged. It is stated that patta of the disputed property was issued in favour of one Shri Charlie son of Tyron by the Gram Panchayat, Titardi on 30.7.05 and thereafter, the same was sold by Charlie in favour of Pradeep Kumar Parihar by a registered sale deed on 28.10.06 and on that basis, the property was mutated in the record of the local authority in the name of Pradeep Kumar on 28.11.06. Shri Pradeep Kumar applied for loan to the respondent -I.D.B.I. on 7.11.06 and the loan was sanctioned in his favour on 23.12.06. Shri Pradeep Kumar created equitable mortgage of the disputed property in favour of the I.D.B.I. It is specifically averred that the original documents of the property were deposited by the loanee Pradeep Kumar with the I.D.B.I. and therefore, any subsequent mortgage created by the petitioner herein in favour of the Bank of Baroda is based on forged documents.;