CW 4293/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4293/2006 Smt. Ashma Khatoon Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 25/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. BB Ojha, for petitioner Mr. Gopal Krshn Garg) Ms Anita Agrawal ) for respondents SBBJ Instant petition has been filed assailing (1) order dt.12/12/2005 (Ann.3) of District Magistrate (Collector), Jaipur City while deciding application filed by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (respondents) U/s 14 of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act, 2002”); & so also order dt. 30/01/06 (Ann.5) rejecting application filed by petitioner U/O 9 R.13, CPC, for re-caling ex parte proceedings. As per material on record, Mohasin Ahmed (petitioner's son), Proprietor of Kamali Gems took cash credit loan of Rs.Two Lacs facility from respondent Bank, for which house No.882-883 belonging to late Allahbad Khan & Smt. Latifan Khatoon, was mortgaged as co-lateral security, and when bank dues were not re-paid by borrower and proceedings were initiated for recovery, petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction with the grievance that property description CW 4293/06 //2// whereof stated in the plaint cannot be used for meeting out outstanding loan amount but finally the suit was dismissed by learned trial Judge. However, respondent Bank also filed suit for recovery of outstanding dues, impleading present petitioner as defendant No.2/1. As informed to this Court, Smt. Latifan Khan who mortgaged the property with the Bank died somewhere in the year 2002. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the Bank on 20/11/06 (Ann.R2/5), against which no further appeal was preferred by petitioner (defendant No.2/1 in Bank's suit). While proceedings were initiated U/s 14 of the Act, 2002 before Collector Jaipur, the Bank failed to implead petitioner as one of respondents, therefore, being aggrieved by aforesaid proceedings, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-3291/05 which was decided vide order dt.11/07/05 (Ann.1) with the liberty to petitioner to raise all available objections under law in pending proceedings before Collector. Despite opportunity ibid, petitioner failed to file objections and the application was decided by Collector on 12/12/05. However, application was filed by petitioner U/O 9, R.13, CPC and no explanation was submitted as to what efforts were CW 4293/06 //3// made after this Court granted liberty to raise all available objections before Collector where application filed by respondent Bank was pending consideration. However, on the application filed by petitioner at a later point of time for setting aside ex parte proceedings, after taking note of material on record, learned Collector dismissed her application vide order dt.30/01/06 (Ann.6). Main contention of petitioner is that she was not impleaded as party in proceedings initiated by Bank – in absence whereof, very order dt.12/12/2005 (Ann.3) is without authority of law and will be of no effect and application filed U/O 9R. 13, CPC was also dismissed without assigning reasons. Respondent-Bank filed reply to writ petition inter-alia averred that petitioner was aware of proceedings initiated by Bank before civil court and after affording her an opportunity of hearing, decree was passed on 20/11/06 (Ann.R2/5) and that apart, parallel proceedings were also initiated under the Act, 2002, for which there is no legal bar and once opportunity was available to petitioner under orders of this Court to submit objections before Collector, the grievance which she has raised that she was not impleaded party respondent, stood over-ruled after CW 4293/06 //4// orders of this Court. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It is not disputed by petitioner that the decree passed by learned trial Judge vide judgment dt.20/11/06 (Ann.R.2/5) in civil suit where she was party defendant No.2/1 and opportunity was afforded to her and that apart, the decree has attained finality and has not been questioned by her at any point of time. As regard application filed by respondent Bank U/s 14 of Act, 2002, it was true that petitioner was not impleaded as party respondent but this fact cannot be ruled out that petitioner was well ware of the fact that there are pending proceedings and she approached this Court by way of CWP-3291/05 which was decided on 11/07/05 granting liberty to her to raise all available objections before Collector where proceedings were pending. Nothing has been placed on record by which it can be inferred that petitioner made efforts raising objections after order of this Court before Collector in the proceedings initiated U/s 14 of the Act and she being completely aware of all these proceedings, failed to avail of opportunity/liberty, in such circumstances, action of respondents in passing CW 4293/06 //5// order impugned dt.12/12/05 cannot be said to be bad in eye of law and as regards application U/O 9, R.13, CPC, it has been considered by Collector under order impugned dt.30/01/06 (Ann.5) taking note of facts on record. This Court does not find any manifest error which may call for interference in the orders impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/4293CW06Mar25DRT.doc