Hardeep Singh vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK on 13 October 2026

1. The appellant filed S.A. bearing no.l2ll2020 titled as Hardeep Singh V. Punjab & Sind Bank & others which was pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chadigarh vide the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 has dismissed the S.A. by observing that the appellant has taken different stands during the trial. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 is reproduced as under:

8. I am of the considered view that the case of the Applicant is neither here nor there. In the SA, he had alleged that he had never stood surety, he had never montgaged his properfy and that a fraud has been played upon him. However now, he has set up the case that the hank had not conducted the auction properly. I am f the considered view that the Applicant cannot be allowed to set up a totally different case from the one already set up by him in his leadings. There is no merit in the SA and the same is hereby dismissed.

2. Ms. Usha Singh, Advocate for the appellant contended and argued that the appellant was an illiterate person and was defrauded by the respondent no.3 who was his brother. The respondent no.3 on the pretext identitying him for taking some loan obtained the signatures/thumb impressions of the appellant on blank clocuments and took loan from the respondent no.l. The appellant had never mortgaged the subject properly. Ihe appellant after receipt of notice dated 01.06.2018 under Section l3(2) of the SARFAEStr Act contacted the respondent no.1 and requested for withdrawal ol possession notice dated 18.08.2018. of the notice. The responrJent no.1 also issued The appellant filed a Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP no.213412019 before High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2019. The appellant being illiterate person never stooci guarantee for the loan taken. The appellant had also agreed to pay the auction price back to the respondent no.1. It was prayed that the"sale of the subject property be set aside and the possession of the secured asset be restored to the appellant.

3. The S.A. was contested by the respondent no.1 by filing reply wherein it was stated that the appellant had never complained to the bank that a fraud was played upon him. The appellant had given guarantee for the loan given to the respondent no.3 and had created security in respect of the shop by depositing original title deed and executing memorandum of equitable mortgage. The propefty was sold in open auction.

4. Ms. Usha Singh, Advocate for the appellant during the course of arguments has refened the valuation reporl which was done in the year 2017 and argued that the subject property was sold in the year 2020 and the subject property was sold much undervalued. It is further argued that the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 is liable to be set aside.

5. Sh. A.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sh. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent no.4 defended the impugned order dated 06.04.2024 and argued that the actions under the SARFAESI Act was taken against the appellant and the subject property in accordance with law. The appellant has never complained about the fraud stated to be played upon him.

6. The perusal of the entire record and the impugned order reflects that there is nothing on record which can suggest that the SARFAESI proceedings undertaken or initiated by the respondent no.1 was not in accordance with law. It appears that the appellant had stood guarantee and mortgaged. the subject property to secure the loan taken by the respondent no.3. The appellant has taken different stands as reflected in paru 8 of the impugned order dated 06.04.2A24 as reproduce hereinabove. The arguments advanced by Ms. Usha Singh for the appellant cannot be accepted. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.04.2A24 and hence, the appeal is dismissed along with pending applications, if any. 7 . If any amount has been deposited as pre-deposit or deposited with the bank be retumed to the appellant as per rules and procedure. ---------r---:-!i; (Dr, Justice Sudhir Kumar.luini Chairperson -pkS