MANVENDRA MISHRA vs CANARA BANK on 5 November 2026

1. The appellant is claiming to be neither borrower nor guarantor or mortgagor and claims himself to be a third party and accordingly stated that he is not required to make any pre-deposit.

2. In the present appeal the challenge is to the order dated 25.09.2026 whereby S.A. filed by the appellant was ordered to be disposed of after observing that the S.A. is not maintainable. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present appeal.

3. It is reflected that the appellant filed S.A. bearing no.808/2026 titled as **Manavendra Mishra V. Canara Bank** which was stated to be pending before DRT, Lucknow. The perusal of the impugned order dated 25.09.2026 reflects that DRT, Lucknow was swayed by the contentions made on behalf of Canara Bank that the subject property was mortgaged with the respondent and thereafter observed that the bank must have taken legal search report and after clear title only subject property would have mortgaged. It is reflected that DRT has further observed that if the appellant has right/interest in the property, he could pursue his remedy before the Civil Court. The impugned order dated 25.09.2026 is reproduced as under:- **Shri Saurabh Saxena Ld. Counsel for the applicant is present.**

**Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank is present**

**In this matter, applicant is third party nor borrower, or mortgagor or guarantor.**

**Counsel for the bank has nothing more to say except that property was validly mortgage.**

**The applicant is trying to make out the case that the bank has not done due diligence and has not taken succession certificate.**

**The bank must have taken legal search report and after clear title only would have mortgaged, the same has confirmed by the Counsel for the bank, if the applicant has right/interest in the property, he can pursue the same before the Civil Court for which he said that partition suit is filed.**

**This SA as such is not maintainable, accordingly disposed of.**

**Let the file be consigned to record room.**

**Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.**

1. 2. Sh. Ashok Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant argued that the impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason and therefore it cannot sustained. It is further argued that DRT, Lucknow has not decided the S.A. on the merit of the case and the documents placed on record by the appellant. He, accordingly, argued and prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

2. 3. Sh. Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the respondent no.1 sought time to file response and also defended the impugned order. The reply on behalf of the respondent no.1 is not required to be filed.

3. 4. It is appearing from the impugned order dated 25.09.2026 that DRT, Jaipur while holding additional charge of DRT, Lucknow has not considered the merits of the case and has not discussed the contentions as made in the S.A. as also in supporting documents. The impugned order dated 25.09.2026 was passed on the premise that the bank must have taken legal search report before the mortgage of the subject property. Since the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises, it is accordingly set aside and the S.A. bearing no.808/2026 is remanded back to DRT, Lucknow for fresh consideration and disposal on merit in accordance with law.

5. The respective parties shall be at liberty to raise all pleas and contentions available to them before DRT in accordance with law. The concerned parties are directed to appear before DRT, Lucknow the additional charge of which is now with DRT, Jaipur on 13.11.2026. The appellant shall be at liberty to file appropriate application in case the respondent no.1 issue possession notice or contemplates any coercive steps against the subject property.

---

**(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson** **Addl. Charge, DRAT, Allahabad**

-pk§