CR No. 2638 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 11196-CII of 2009 and CR No. 2638 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.11.2009 Reena Aggarwal ....Petitioner. Versus Punjab National Bank and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for respondent No.1. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 11196-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 2638 of 2009 The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the lower appellate court whereby the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the trial court granting her ad-interim injunction regarding the house in question was set aside and the application filed for that relief was dismissed. The lower appellate court while reversing the findings of the trial court, in para 15 of its order had recorded as under:- “15. The perusal of the facts of this case, as well CR No. 2638 of 2009 -2- as, the law referred by the parties, makes it clear that as far as tenancy right of the person is concerned, the same cannot be taken away with the help of Sections 13 and 14 (4) of the Act. However, at the same time, the party aggrieved can very well approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In other words, if the matter is taken up before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the order is passed then the civil court would have no jurisdiction. In the present set of circumstances on the file, it is clear that it is a collusion between the plaintiff and the borrower and there is no authentic document to show that she was at all inducted as a tenant prior to taking of the debt by the borrower. Thus, she having no right in the property before the property was subjected to mortgage by the borrower, she has no right so as to claim injunction. The learned trial Court has, thus, improperly exercised its discretion by allowing the relief of injunction. It was an act of collusion between the plaintiff and the borrower so as to thwart the recovery proceeding initiated by the bank about two years back. There was no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case where the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. The appeal, as such, is accepted and the order CR No. 2638 of 2009 -3- under challenge is set aside. Consequently, the application for ad-interim injunction fails and is dismissed.” On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to whether there is any material to show that the petitioner was inducted as tenant prior to the creation of the mortgage, he could not produce the same before this Court. In view of the above backdrop as well as the observations of the lower appellate court, there is no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE