Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, cannot go into the controversy whether putting the property for auction by SBI, is authorized or not: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Where there is controversy as to whether SBI’s act of auctioning a property was authorized or not, the court felt that it wasn’t supposed to go into that controversy while deciding the matter, while it is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Sudhir Lodhi Vs. Smt. Bobby Gurung alias Smt. Babita Gurung and others (WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1345 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along with a temporary injunction application.
In the present case, the trial court issued notices on the temporary injunction application, the petitioner approached the court stating the trial Court ought to have granted ex-parte temporary injunction order in favour of the petitioner.
The court observed that no interference could be warranted with the order dated 22.04.2021 since the trial court was not at fault as Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. ordains that the Court shall, in all cases, a direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party before granting any injunction and proviso toRule 3 mandates that Court will have to record reasons for granting the ex-parte temporary injunction.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never issued any loan from the State Bank of India (SBI) regarding the property that SBI was about to auction. Thereby the counsel pointed that the Bank had no authority to put the said property into an auction. Further to this, the counsel of respondent 3 submitted that the property to be auctioned belonged to one Smt. Durga Bharti had mortgaged the said property in favour of the State Bank of India. The court observed – “This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, cannot go into the controversy whether the act of State Bank of India, of putting the property for auction, is authorized or not.”
The counsel for the petitioner prayed that since the temporary injunction application was pending, the court if it feels fit, may dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the trial court to consider the said application on the next date fixed or any other day within three weeks thereafter.
The court thereby directed the trial court to consider petitioner’s temporary injunction application on 02.09.2021 or on any other day within three weeks thereafter and stated that – “Till consideration of petitioner’s temporary injunction application or till 24.09.2021, whichever is earlier, status quo qua the suit property shall be maintained and no third party interest shall be created by any of the parties.” Thereby the writ petition was dismissed.