C.R No. 2823 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 2823 of 2009 Date of decision : October 26, 2009 Smt. Swaran Lata Grover, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State Bank of India Fazilk and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This petition has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below declining the application for injunction filed by the petitioner for restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from taking physical possession of the property in dispute. The case set up is that the petitioner first purchased one property and thereafter mortgaged it as a guarantor in favour of respondent No.1 in consideration of loan issued by the said respondent in favour of respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the adjoining property and built a house on amalgamated properties. Respondent No.3 C.R No. 2823 of 2009 ::2:: defaulted on repayment and thereafter respondent No.1 filed a statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In response thereto, the petitioner filed the instant suit in which, as mentioned above, an interim order was sought which was declined. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that admittedly no mortgage was created with respect to subsequently purchased adjoining property and, thus, respondent No.1 could not be permitted to disturb the possession of the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner first mortgaged the property, then consciously amalgamated it with another property and, thus, she cannot be heard to say that her possession should not be disturbed. The only remedy for the petitioner would be to pay the loan amount and then to recover it from the original owner. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merit of the controversy. October 26, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE