7.wp.2228.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2228 OF 2009 Smt. Noorjahan Pansare and 3 others. ..Petitioners. Versus Gruh Finance Ltd., and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.A. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- By this Petition, the petitioners challenge a notice dated 27.1.2009 issued by the respondent. By the said notice issued by respondent, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are informed that by demand notice dated 1.7.2004 which was issued to them under sub- section 2 of section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, they were called upon to pay an amount of Rs.2,92,464/- as on 1.7.2004 within a period of 60 days from the date of notice. They 7.wp.2228.09 2 were informed that failing compliance of that notice, action under sub-section 4 of section 13 would be taken. It is further stated that after receipt of that notice, petitioner Nos.1 & 2 have not discharged their liability. Therefore, it was proposed that in exercise of their powers under sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, they will take possession of the Flat Nos.1 & 2, Kaisar Complex. It is an admitted position that the notice dated 1.7.2004 was received by petitioner Nos.1 & 2. They have neither replied that notice nor they have complied with the notice. If petitioner Nos.1 & 2 had not taken any loan from the respondent they should have replied to the notice pointing out that they have not taken any loan from the respondent. They have not done it. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are the owners of flat Nos.1 & 2. If they have not taken any loan from the respondent. If that was so, on receipt of notice dated 27.1.2009, the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 could have first approached the respondent and produced their documents of title of the flats before the respondent and told them that they are the owners and that they have not taken any loan from the respondent. Instead of doing that, this Petition has been filed. We cannot in our 7.wp.2228.09 3 extraordinary jurisdiction decide the question of facts as to whether the loan has been taken, who has taken the loan, if the loan has been taken has it been repaid, who is title holder of these flats etc. In our opinion, filing of such Petition amounts to misusing jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (K.K. TATED,J)