Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.1.2015 (Annex.5) passed by learned ADJ, Churu in CAO No.10/14 (24/12) whereby the order dated 7.9.2012 (Annex.3) passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) Churu in Civil Misc. case No.49/12 dismissing the applications under Order 21 Rule 32 and Section 151 CPC was affirmed. The aforesaid application were filed for restoration of possession in respect of the property, possession thereof was taken over by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in exercise of its powers under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.
(2.) The mortgagor i.e. Hakim Ali Khan S/o Mohd. Ishaq Khan, resident of Churu created security interest in respect of his immovable property situated at Churu. He failed to repay the dues of secured creditor i.e. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, therefore, the loan a/c was classified as NPA and action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act was initiated by the Bank.The present petitioner stating himself to be the tenant filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of alleged rent note dated 1.3.2007 against Hakim ali as the respondent. However, a consent decree was passed vide judgment dated 7.1.2012. The respondents are the officers of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and were posted at Churu at the relevant point of time. They were not the party to the proceedings before the civil Court. They took action against the secured asset being the secured creditors and in pursuance to an application filed by them under Section 14 of the Act before the District Collector, Churu, the possession of the mortgaged property was taken by the secured creditor i.e. SBBJ after following the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application before the Civil Judge(JD) under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC praying for restoration of the possession of the petitioner and to also take action against the bank officers. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 7.9.2012. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same too was rejected.
(3.) While praying for setting aside the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank authorities had no power under the SARFAESI Act to dispossess the petitioner from the house. The bank authorities had also no right to dispossess the petitioner from the house as he had the lawful decree passed by the competent court of law in his favour.;