IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1873 of 2010 1. The Canara Bank Having Its Head Office At 112, J.C. Road, Banglore Through Its Chairman And Managing Director. 2. The Chairman And Managing Director, Canara Bank Head Office At 112, J.C. Road, Banglore (Karnataka), Both represented Through Mr. Ranjan Ghoshrave, Senior Manager, R & L Section As Power Of Attorney Holder, Circle Office, R&L Section, Luk Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna 3. The General Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, Luk Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Luk Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna. 5. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Branch Office, Sasaram, Rohtas. .............Respondents/Appellants Versus Shri Ram Gupta S/O Dargahi Ram R/O Mohalla- Chaukhandi, P.S.- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas. ...........Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 05 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9724 of 2010. Sri Bajrangi Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent made a statement at Bar that the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with, inasmuch as, the Bank has filed the written statement on 27th of July, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued, relying on statement made in paras 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit that the writ was not maintainable and the learned Single Judge has not adverted on this point, rather Section 34 has been considered to entertain the writ petition taking into account that the jurisdiction of the 2 Civil Court was barred. Bar created under Sub-Section 1 of Section 13, Section 17 and Section 34 is directly against the filing of the suit against the action taken under Securitization Act. If the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred, the remedy was only before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the suit was filed prior to the initiation of the proceeding under the Securitization Act. The security agreement has been defined under Clause (zb) of Section 2 of the Securitization Act, which provides that “security agreement” means an agreement, instrument or any other document or arrangement under which security interest is created in favour of the secured creditor including the creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the secured creditor”. None of the parties have filed the security agreement to enable the learned Single Judge to examine as to whether whole of the HUD property was mortgaged or the share of borrower Ajit Kumar was mortgaged. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the property was not ancestral one, as it was exclusively purchased by the father and mother of the borrower, who stood as guarantors for the loan while the property was mortgaged. In view of the fact that both the parties lack in bringing the entire facts before the learned Single Judge, therefore, learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file security agreement, showing that the clear position may come out with regard to the nature of property, so that the property or share of any other person, if not 3 mortgaged, may not be put to severe. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to reconsider his judgment in the light of the documents as observed above, filed by the parties. This L.P.A. is disposed off. Safik (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)