CPC Order 7

Latest

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 11 – Bank – Mortgage – Suit by alleged bona fide purchaser - Before the execution of the sale deeds, the lands were already put as a security by way of mortgage with the bank - Even the sale consideration is alleged to have been paid in cash  – Suits filed after a period of 15 years from date of mortgage and after a period of 7 years from date of passing of the decree by the DRT – In the criminal complaint filed after the decree allegations of fraud are with respect to the partnership deed and there are no allegations at all with respect to mortgage created by the Guarantor and that too with respect to the deed of guarantee executed by the Guarantor Even in the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate there is no reference to the deed of guarantee and/or the mortgage created by the Guarantor -  Even the bank is not a party to the said proceedings - Considering the pleadings/averments in the suits and the allegations of fraud, we are of the opinion that the allegations of fraud are illusory and only with a view to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT -   Therefore the suits are vexatious and are filed with a mala fide intention to get out of the judgment and decree passed by the DRT - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), S. 20 2020 SCeJ 254

 

 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 11 -  Ritual of repeating a word or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unravelled and exposed by the court while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) - Such proceedings are required to be nipped in the bud. 2020 SCeJ 254

 

 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 7 Rule 11 - Main prayer in the suits is challenging the decree passed by the DRT - The decree passed by the learned DRT and even the order passed by the Recovery Officer are appealable under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act -  Without exhausting the remedy of appeal provided under the RDDBFI Act, the suits with the basic relief of challenging the decree passed by the DRT were liable to be dismissed, as observed and held by this Court in the case of O.C. Krishnan and others (supra). Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act. 2020 SCeJ 254