CR No.6542 of 2010 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6542 of 2010 Date of decision:07.10.2010 Mr. Shree Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ...Respondent CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the interim order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon dated 10.04.2010 and the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon dated 21.09.2010 by which an application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for ad interim injunction has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is not well founded on facts, which have come on record, because his case is that the defendant/bank had obtained his signatures on blank papers and he had never obtained any loan of `5,50,000/- to repay the loan amount of Kiran Goyal nor created any equitable mortgage in respect of his house by depositing its title deed. The Courts below have found that the title deed of his house is in possession of the bank and not only that, the plaintiff/petitioner had also deposited two installments of loan of `30,000/-, which prima facie shows that the plaintiff had obtained loan from CR No.6542 of 2010 -2- ****** the bank who had all the rights to recover the same in accordance with the provisions of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In view thereof, I do not find any error in the orders of the Courts below which could call for any correction by exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 07, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE