IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.318 of 2022 Decided on 05th September, 2025 Khem Raj Bansal …Petitioner Versus HDFC Bank Limited and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for, this petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.8, Shimla, H.P., in CMA No.393 of 2022 filed in Civil Suit No.164 of 2020, titled Khem Raj Bansal v. HDFC Bank and another may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice and fair play and consequently the Civil Suit No.164 of 2020 titled as Khem Raj Bansal vs. HDFC Bank and another may kindly be restored to its original number for adjudication in the justice, equity and fair play.” 2 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court stands informed that the petitioner has liquidated the loan that was taken by his father as gold loan from the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the petitioner having fulfilled all the formalities the gold is not being handed back to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the gold that the respondent has no issue in handing over the gold to the petitioner, but an indemnity bond has to be signed by the petitioner to the effect that if tomorrow some other legal heirs of deceased Sh. Dhani Ram Bansal, stake their claim over the gold, then, the same shall not be the responsibility of the Bank. 5. This Court is of the considered view that as it is not the case of the respondent-Bank that the loan taken by late Sh. Dhani Ram stands liquidated by someone else except the petitioner, then, obviously, the gold has to be returned back to the petitioner. This is more so in light of the fact that the petitioner has already placed on record the authorization of all the legal heirs which is not disputed even by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3 6. Therefore, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that now let the gold ornaments be returned back to the petitioner without insisting upon the indemnity bond as other formalities already stand complied by the petitioner. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 05, 2025 (Vinod)