PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs PARNEET KAUR

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 + C.R.P. 49/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, Advocate. versus PARNEET KAUR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shailendra Ojha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Petition seeks to challenge the order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, North West District, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court) have been dismissed. 2. A perusal of the record shows that that Impugned Order sets out in detail as to the objections taken by the Petitioner in its Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC being: (i) that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction in view of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”]; (ii) Secondly, that there is no cause of action in favour of the Petitioner; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:15.04.2025 C.R.P. 49/2024 Page 1 of 6 11:30:06 (iii) Lastly, that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 41 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2.1 Two other averments were made by the Petitioner that the Plaintiff is in collusion with other Defendants to grab the property and that there is a contradiction in the Plaint. 3. The record reflects that no Reply to the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC were filed by the Respondent before the learned Trial Court and oral arguments were addressed. The learned Trial Court exam