Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)

Order Date: 06.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Sudip Paitya, resident of Cachar, Assam; Respondents – Punjab National Bank (PNB) and three others, represented by its Managing Director, Authorized Officers, and Asst. General Manager of the Fancy Bazar and Silchar branches.
  • Nature of Proceedings: Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the trial court’s order (dated 05.05.2026) rejecting a temporary injunction sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in Misc. (J) Case No. 205/2022, connected to Title Suit No. 163/2022.
  • Background: The appellant inherited a plot (8 kathas, 18 gondas) in Barakpar, Mouza Kanakpur Pt. II, later purchased his brother’s share, becoming absolute owner. He mortgaged the same land to PNB, defaulted, and the loan (principal undisclosed) was declared NPA on 30.11.2018. PNB issued a SARFAESI notice on 07.01.2019, possession notice on 19.07.2019, and a sale notice on 29.09.2020. The appellant filed SA No. 48/2020 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, which was dismissed for default. A subsequent e‑auction notice was issued on 08.07.2021. On 30.08.2022, PNB affixed a banner on a different plot (Dag No. 113, RS Patta No. 27) that the appellant claimed was never mortgaged.
  • Legal Contentions: The appellant argued that the un‑mortgaged property should not be subject to SARFAESI‑driven possession and that Section 25(aa) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, permits seizure of other property only if secured assets are insufficient. He cited Mohan Bhandar Saraswathi Puram v. Vijaya Bank (2018 SCC Online Kar 4266). The bank contended that, under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, civil courts lack jurisdiction to grant injunctions when DRT proceedings are pending, and that a recovery proceeding for Rs 1,61,45,292.54 (interest @10.50% p.a.) is ongoing before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Guwahati.
  • Statutory Provisions Discussed: Section 25(aa) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (possession and sale of secured and other property); Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (exclusion of civil court jurisdiction and injunctions); relevant SARFAESI notices and DRT dismissals (SA No. 48/2020 dismissed for default; SA No. 40/21 dismissed on 09.03.2023).

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars any civil court from granting an injunction in matters where the bank is exercising powers under the SARFAESI Act or the Recovery of Debts Act. Consequently, the trial court’s refusal to grant a temporary injunction was justified.
  • The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. The appellant was directed to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, for a fair exercise of the powers conferred under Section 25(aa) of the Recovery of Debts Act concerning his un‑mortgaged property.
  • Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be sent to the trial court for information.

Topics: Injunction, SARFAESI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunal