Hon’ble Mr. Sudeb Mitra, Presiding Member

Order No. :  11

Date : 28.06.2024   

    Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman in CC/232/2022 filed by Supreeti Mondal W/O Late Nripen Mondal against the Revisionist/Petitioner and its officer and the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd on 13.12.2022, the Revisionist has filed the instant Revision Petition seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.

    The salient features relied on by the Revisionist/Petitioner in assailing the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman are reflected below in gist.

    The Revisionist/Petitioner assailed the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 on the grounds that the impugned order lacked equity, lacks proper assessment of SARFEASI Act and its’ relevant provisions pertinent to be appreciated for assessment of the legal actions taken by the Revisionist/Petitioner to deal with the non-performing assets, in the form of the mortgaged properties of the complainant/Respondent side No. 1 of this Revision petition kept with the Revisionist as securities of the loan of huge amount to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- + Rs. 2,00,000/- taken by Nripen Mondal the husband of the respondent No. 1/Complainant and co borrower respondent from this Revisionist/Petitioner.

    The instant Revision Petition is also pressed on the ground that the respondent No. 1/complainant of this Revision Petition and complaint should have not been determined by the Ld. DCDRC as Consumer coming within the provision of the C.P. Act of 2019 and she has got no locus standi to file the CC/232/2022 legally since she is mere a co-borrower of loan from the Revisionist.

    This is also pressed from the end of the Revisionist/Petitioner side that the abiding and to the point guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, Hon’ble High Courts of various provinces of India and Hon’ble NCDRC have not been followed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman while passing the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 and that lacuna has been reflecting improper assessment of the stand of the Revisionist in CC/232/2022 and this is pressed in this Revision by the Revisionist/Petitioner that it was not properly allowed to press and establish its’ own case supported by its relevant documents since documents were not allowed to be exhibited to establish the Revisionist’s stand against the complainant’s baseless complaint.

    The factual matrix of CC/232/2022 from which the impunged order dated 20.07.2023 came up needs to be recapitulated at this stage.

    This is the stand of the Respondent No. 1 of this Revision Petition /Complainant of Complaint case Supreeti Mondal that prompted her to file the complaint case No. 232 of 2022 on 13.12.2022 before the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman, that through her husband Nripen Mondal, since deceased, on and from 30.01.2022, had taken loan, for growing his business, from the revisionist no. 1 of the instant Revision/OP No. 2 of CC/232/2022 in 2020 to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/- by mortgaging his residential house as security and to cover the risk of the life of her said husband Nripen Mondal an “Insurance Policy” was issued by the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and though the respondent’s husband was repaying up loan by EMI, as stipulated, yet after his passing away on 30.01.2022 the “Death Claim” of the insured deceased Nripen Mondal was repudiated by the Proforma Respondent of this Revision Petition ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in collusion with the Revisionist of this Revision. Failing to repay the loan and to resist the unjust repudiation of the ‘death claim’ of the respondent/complainant, she filed CC/232/2022 before the Ld. DCDRC seeking reliefs, as reflected in the complainant’s prayer in CC/232/2022.

    It is the specific assertion of the respondent of this Revision Petition, Supreeti Mondal that during the continuation of the complaint case, the OP No. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 i.e. the revisionist/petitioner served repossession notices of the mortgage property of her husband Nripen Mondal and against that noticed on 06.07.2023 she had moved before the Ld. DCDRC in CC/232/2022 and obtained specific restraining order threrefrom against such notice and since the force of the relevant notices of the revisionist/OP was stayed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman vide order dated 30.07.2022 against the OPs 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 have preferred this Revision Petition assailing the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 that stayed the Revisionist’s notice dated 06.07.2023 (which intimated the reauction of the complainant’s mortgaged properties to it till disposal of CC/232/2022.

    The recapitulation of the Revisionist’s case reveals that Nripen Mondal passed away before repaying the loan of Rs. 21,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- taken from the Revisionist/Petitioner of the instant Revision and consequently revisionist/OPs 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 sent letter to the respondent/complainant Supreeti Mondal (deceased Nirpen Mondal’s heir/wife) demanding outstanding loan amount since it did not appear result orienting, the Revisionist took the shelter of SARFEASI Act of 2002 and as per scopes of Sec. 13 (2) of the said Act of 2002, sent demand no till to the respondent No. 1 of this Revision, treating the impugned property as non performing assets of the nonpaying borrower of loan amount, since respondent of the Revision Supreeti Mondal is the legal heir of the original borrower, Nripen Mondal, since deceased.

     It is the assertion of the Revisionist side here that without having regard to the scopes of the relevant provisions of the SARFEASI Act of 2002, the Ld. DCDRC Purba Bardhaman passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in CC/232/2022, and thereby barred the jurisdiction of the SARFEASI Act of 2002 by creating arbitrary obstruction against the lawful act of the Revisionist/Petitioner of the instant Revision Petition.

    By pressing this, the Revisionist has pressed for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 and sought for consequent relief(s) as reflected in the instant Revision Petition.

Point for consideration/determination

    Now it is to be assessed as to whether the instant Revision Petition of the Revisionist/Petitioner deserved positive consideration to be entertained and it is, on the contrary to be appreciated and weighed as to whether the impugned order dated 20.07.2023, passed in CC/232/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, so assailed in this Revision Petition by the Revisionist/Petitioner is sustainable in the eye of law.

Decision with reasons

    It is forthcoming from the available materials on record of CC/232/2022 that the complainant/respondent Supreeti Mondal filed CC/232/2022 U/Sec. 35 of the C.P. Act of 2019 on 13.12.2022 seeking relevant reliefs against the Revisionist/OP Nos. 1 to 3, assailed in the prayer portion of CC/232/2022. It was fixed to be admitted on 19.12.2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman.

    On 19.12.2022 the CC/232/2022 was admitted by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and 31.01.2023 was fixed for S/R and appearance of the OPs of that CC/232/2022 i.e. the revisionist/petitioner of this Revision Petition and the proforma respondent of this Revision Petition/Co-OP of CC/232/2022 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

    On that day i.e. on 19.12.2022 the complainant of CC/232/2022/Respondent of this Revision Petition Supreeti Mondal pressed a petition U/Sec. 38(8) of C.P. Act of 2019 supported by affidavit before the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and the concerned Ld. DCDRC, on consideration of her prayer, passed an interim order directing the OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 i.e. the Revisionist of this Revision not to take possession of the scheduled mentioned mortgaged property or not to transfer, or not to sale out the said property to third party till 31.01.2023, since the OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 i.e. the present Revisionist/petitioner had sent/served possession notice on 06.12.2022 upon the complainant of CC/232/2022/Respondent of this Revision in respect of the mortgaged property.

    For final disposal of this petition of the complainant of CC/232/2022 filed on 19.12.2022 U/Sec. 38 (8) of the C.P. Act of 2019, this petition was treated/registered as MA/113/2022.

    It appears from the available materials on record that this interim order U/Sec. 38 (8) of C.P. Act of 2019 was extended from 18.12.2022 to 31.08.2023 and from 31.01.2023 to 05.04.2023 and on 05.04.2023 the OP No. 1 of CC/232/2022 i.e. Proforma Respondent of this Revision Petition, the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed a petition praying for accepting its W/V in CC/232/2022 since on the last occasion of the proceeding in CC/232/2022 i.e. on 31.01.2023, on its’ absence from attending the proceeding of CC/232/2022, inspite of being noticed in CC/232/2022, this CC/232/2022 was fixed for exparte hearing against it. The petition of the OP No. 1 of CC/232/2022 for recalling order of exparte hearing of CC/232/2022 against it and for acceptance of written version from its (OP No.1’s of CC/232/2022) and was treated/registered as MA/48/2023.

    On 05.04.2023 the OPs No. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 i.e. the present Revisionist side of this Revision Petition appeared, filed petition (U/O VII R 11 C.P.C. read with section 151 of C.P.C) seeking for rejection of complaint together with a separate petition praying for necessary reliefs as contemplated U/Sec. 34 of SARFEASI Act of 2002 and that petition is registered as MA/49/2023.

    It appears that by order dated 05.04.2023, the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman fixed 12.06.2023 for these 03 petitions to be heard together with its objections, if any, to be filed in the meantime and determined at the same time that interim order passed U/Sec. 38 (8) of C.P. Act on 19.12.2022 so extended firstly upto 31.01.2023 and thereafter upto 05.04.2023 shall be further extended upto 12.06.2023.

    It appears from the case record that on 01.06.2023 the complaint case record No. 232/2022 was allowed to be put up at the instance of the complainant of CC/232/2022 i.e. the respondent of this Revision Petition.

    From the gist of the order revealed that since the complainant/Respondent of CC/232/2022 and RP/20/2023, could prima facie establish exparte before the Ld. DCDRC that in spite of the Ld. Forums existing interim order dated 19.12.2022 that was extended time to time and was directed to be in force and extended upto 12.06.2023 vide its order in CC/232/2022 passed on 05.04.2023 when all the opposite parties of CC/232/2022 were aware of, the OP Nos. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 had issued notices dated 11.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 upon the complainant of the said complaint case to sale out her mortgaged property against loan taken from those OPs and it was violation of that interim order dated 19.12.2022 extended time to time upto 12.06.2023.

    It appears from the available materials on record that by the order dated 01.06.2023, the Ld. DCDRC stayed those notices of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022/Revisionist/petitioner side of Revision Petition No. 20/2023, passed by it on 11.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 till 12.06.2023 and the OPs No. 3 of CC/232/2022 was directed to show cause by 12.06.2023 as to why appropriate legal steps should not be passed against him for violating the interim order dated 19.12.2022.

    This transpires by the available materials on record of CC/232/2022 that on 12.06.2023 OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 prayed for time to file S/C that was directed to be filed by it by 12.06.2022 by the order of the Ld. DCDRC dated 01.06.2023. It was considered and allowed fixing 07.08.2023 for filing Show cause by the OP 3 in CC/232/2022.

    It reveals from the said order dated 12.06.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 that the complainant of CC/232/2022 filed written objection against the petition (MA/49/2023) of the OPs Nos. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 filed on 05.04.2023 from their end and on prayer of the complainant the interim order existing in her favour, was extended from 12.06.2023 to 07.08.2023 and that date 07.08.2023 too was fixed for hearing of the complainant’s filed MA/113/2022, OP No. 1’s filed MA/48/2023 and OP No. 2 and 3’s filed MA/49/2023 and filing of show cause by the Revisionist/Petitioner No. 2/OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 i.e. Authorized Officer of Loan providing institute. Surprisingly, by that order dated 12.06.2023 no further order for extension of stay of operation of notices dated 11.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 was passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and only interim order was extended in favour of the complainant upto 07.08.2023 in CC/232/2022 from 12.06.2023.

    It transpires from the order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 on which date the record was allowed to be put up at the instance of the complainant of CC/232/2022 i.e. the principal respondent of the instant Revision Petition that on 20.07.2023, the complainant/respondent contended before the Ld. DCDRC that the OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 served notice dated 06.07.2023 upon the complainant respondent stating that E. Auction will take place in respect of her late husband’s disputed mortgaged properties on 25.07.2023.

    On consideration of the available materials and concerned notice dated 06.07.2023 the Ld. Concerned DCDRC on 20.07.2023 passed the impugned order and stayed the notice of the OP No. 3/Revisionist of RP/20/2023 till the disposal of the CC/232/2022 and fixed 07.08.2023 for showing cause by the OP No. 3 of CC/232/2022 against such notice.

    Against this order dated 20.07.2023, the Revisionist/OP Nos. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 preferred this Revision Petition seeking setting aside of the said order dated 20.07.2023.

   It appears from the available materials on record that the impugned order dated 20.07.2023, assailed in this Revision Petition, never reflects anything to hold that the Ld. DCDRC concerned had passed an order of injunction against the Revisionist to take the effect till the disposal of CC/232/2022, though such ground is emphasized in this Revision Petition by the Revisionist/Petitioner to assail/challenge the property of the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in CC/232/2022.

    The Revisionist/Petitioner could not substantiate why the Revisionist had not rationalized its’ stand before the Ld. DCDRC, immediately on its appearance in the CC/232/2022 to contest on 05.04.2023 by assigning reasons, if any, to neutralize the adverse impact of the interim order of injunction given by the Ld. DCDRC at the instance of the complainant in CC/232/2022 on 19.12.2022 and extending it time to time from 19.12.2022 to 31.01.2023, from 31.01.2023 to 05.04.2023, 05.04.2023 to 12.06.2023 and from 12.06.2023 to 07.08.2023 even when revisionist has been contesting in CC/232/2022. This also could not be ascertained from the Revisionist/Petitioner that why even after getting direction to show cause given to it by the Ld. DCDRC concerned vide its’ order dated 01.06.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 as to it’s notice sent upon the complainant dated 11.05.2023 and 25.05.2023, the Revisionist waited long to answer that show cause and in that process allowed it to get another show cause notice dated 20.07.2023 for its reissuing notice upon the complainant of CC/232/2022 dated 06.07.2023 informing the complainant about the date of the E-Auction of the mortgaged property of the complainant side. Had those show cause notices dated 01.06.2023 and 20.07.2023 been answered by the Revisionist/Petitioner to rationalize it’s own stand in sending those notices dated 11.05.2023, 25.05.2023, 06.07.2023 upon the complainant/respondent, the matter could have taken different shape.

    It is also needless to reiterate that the Ld. DCDRC should have to lend scope to the Revisionist/OP side to contest in respect of the complainant’s petition registered as MA/113/2022 filed U/Sec. 38 (8) of the C.P. Act 2019 at the revisionist instance on appearance of the Revisionist side/OPs No. 2 and 3 and the Ld. Forum should have to dispose of the ‘put up’ petitions of the complainant of CC/232/2022 dated 01.06.2023 since by that time OPs of  the CC/232/2022 have all appeared in that the complaint case No. 232/2022.

    It appears at this stage of the proceedings of CC/232/2022 that the contesting parties of that Complaint Case have all turned up and there is reasonable ground to hold that they all intend to contest in the complaint case No. 232/2022, as their respective trend of approach in it is reflecting.

    It is forthcoming from the available materials on record that the MA/113/2022 filed by the complainant of CC/232/2022 besides MA/48/2023 filed by the OP No. 1 of CC/232/2022 and MA/49/2023 filed by the OPs No. 2 and 3 in CC/232/2022 are pending for disposal before the Ld. DCDRC, Purba Bardhaman and the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 has been passed in it, on allowing a ‘put up’ petition of the complainant of CC/232/2022 i.e. the respondent of this Revision Petition No. 20/2023 Supreeti Mondal, though all other contesting parties have already turned up and intended to contest in that complaint case by the time, the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in CC/232/2022 was passed.

    In this backdrop, I find it just that the contesting parties all in CC/232/2022 deserve and should be given a scope in MA/113/2022, MA/48/2023 and MA/49/2023 to be heard according to their respective and independent stands at the Ld. DCDRC concerned and it should be better to dispose of the MA/113/2022, MA/48/2023 and MA/49/2023 on hearing all the respective parties of the CC/232/2022, contesting in these 3 MA Cases arising out of CC/232/2022, to avoid prolixity, multiplicity and multi dimensioning of the CC/232/2022 without just basis and cause.

    Besides having regard to the echelons of the judicial system of both C.P.C. and C.P. Act of 2019 the pending maters from which exparte interim order of injunction have been passed by the Ld. DCDRC and extended time to time, the maters in issue should be disposed of on contest in that forum of DRC specially when the affected opposite parties of that interim order have already appeared in that case and contesting when extension of interim orders were passed by the concerned Ld. DCDRC. After the finality of the relevant orders arising from the disputed issues reflected in MA/113/2022, MA/48/2023 and MA/49/2023 this forum should better be approached to assail the final out come to those 3 MAs by the affected parties of those MA dissatisfied with any order arising from those MAs.

    In the light of the above decisions, I find that this Revision Petition against the exparte order passed on allowing a ‘put up’ petition of the respondent/complainant of CC/232/2022, deserves no positive consideration and the matters in issue, prompting the institution of this Revision Petition, lend ground to be disposed of on contest when the contesting opposite parties had turned up to contest in CC/232/2022 and on the issue/topic as well which obtained an one sided exparte order, in spite of existence of scope to convert that exparte order into a contested one by hearing the prevailing contesting parties of those issues/topics.

   In the premises the instant Revision Petition (20/2023 filed on 26.09.2023 fails on contest.

    Hence, it is

                                    ORDERED

    That the instant Revision Petition No. 20/2023 dated 20.09.2023 filed by the revisionist/petitioner i.e. the OP side Nos. 2 and 3 of CC/232/2022 assail the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed in CC/232/2022 is rejected on contest and is thus disposed off.

    The IA/73/2023 i.e. the Stay petition filed by the revisionist/petitioner side of this Revision Petition RP/20/2023 filed on 03.10.2023, praying for staying of all further operation of the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC in CC/232/2022, stands otiose and rejected consequent to the rejection and dismissal of the Revision Petition No. 20/2023 dated 20.09.2023.

    Let the LCR and this order be transmitted to the Ld. Concerned DCDRC Purba Bardhaman as early as practicable to dispose of MA/113/2022, MA/48/2023, MA/49/2023 with their respective written objection, if any, and other relevant petitions of the contesting parties, as early as possible after given the relevant contesting parties of CC/232/2022 reasonable scope to make their respective submissions in respect of all those 3 MAs and dispose of those MA having regard to the relevant scopes and provisions of C.P. Act, CPC and SARFEASI Act of 2002 and its relevant rules.

    Let copy of this order be given free of cost to the contesting parties of this Revision Petition. To proceed to the Ld. concerned DCDRC forthwith for early disposal of CC/232/222, according to its convenience and practicability.