IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16526 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 09, 2010. Surinder Kaur .....Petitioner versus Debt Recovery Tribunal and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.N.C.Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Pathania, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, in terms whereof their residential property bearing No.XXXIII-357-A-13 measuring 155 square yards, situated at Village Jassian Karol Bagh Colony, Tehsil and District Ludhiana is sought to be auctioned. The petitioner is said to have purchased the above stated house from Bhupinder Singh son of Inder Singh and Ranjjit Singh son of Bhupinder Singh for consideration vide registered sale deed dated 24.8.2005 (Annexure P-1). Smt.Krishna Sukhija and her husband Puran C.W.P.No .16526 of 2009 2 Singh son of Mahal Singh, on the other hand, are the loanees who took loan from the respondents bank on 9.5.2003 for construction of house on the plot measuring 161.11 square yards comprised in Khata No.220/233, 221/234, 222/235 and Khasra No.13/9/2, 11, 18/2, 12, 13 as per the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 situated at Jassian Mohalla Karol Bagh Colony, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The title deed of the above-stated plot has been placed on record by the respondent-bank as Annexure R-2/1 which shows that the said plot was purchased by Smt.Krishna Sukhija from Ranjit Singh son of Sital Singh through his Power of Attorney Beant Singh son of Sohan Singh. The khasra numbers and location of both the properties, i.e., the one purchased by the petitioner through her husband and the other owned by Krishna Sukhija though would give an impression as if they pertain to one and the same property, however, the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case to assert that the residential house purchased by her vide sale deed dated 24.8.2005 is not the subject matter of equitable mortgage said to have been executed by the loanee-Krishna Sukhija. Such like title disputes cannot be resolved by a Writ Court for the reason that the parties are required to lead evidence to establish the identity of the properties as well as the valid title in the hands of their respective vendors. The petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit as explained by the respondents but that is only for permanent injunction. It is alleged that having failed to get the ad-interim injunction that the petitioner has C.W.P.No .16526 of 2009 3 approached this Court. It is also maintained by the respondents that the petitioner can submit her objections before the Recovery Officer to get the above-stated dispute resolved. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner is not party to the equitable mortgage or the loan transaction, she is not obligated to submit herself to the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal or its Recovery Officer. Since the petitioner's claim is based upon the registered 'Title Deed' in her favour and there is a serious dispute with regard to the identity of the mortgaged property, she shall be well within her right to seek a declaration from the Civil Court that the residential house owned by her is distinct from the property said to have been equitably mortgaged by the loanee in favour of the respondent-bank. Such a declaration can be sought by the petitioner by amending the Civil Suit for injunction already filed by her which would obviate multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an amended suit before the Civil Court and seek an appropriate declaration. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank undertakes not to raise any objection against the prayer for amendment of the plaint. The Civil Court is directed to take on record the amended Civil Suit with opportunity to file amended written statement etc. and thereafter adjudicate the issue(s) involved in accordance with law, as early as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. C.W.P.No .16526 of 2009 4 Till the decision of the Civil Suit, status-quo as directed by this Court, shall be maintained by the parties. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 09, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE