IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 GAJENDRA KUMAR AND ANR KARVY FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED KFSL AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Dinesh Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had taken a total loan of Rs.29 the property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, had been mortgaged. He, however, submits that respondent No.2 erroneously passed the order under Section 14 of the SARF the handing over of the possession of the entire property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, instead of only the second floor. He has referred to the loan agreement entered in the year 2013 at Annexure P the other loans were also taken against property. 2. Learned State counsel, upon instructions from Ms. Neha Singh, Tehsildar, Badh Kalan, submits that the possession of only that property would be handed over to respondent No. 3. Heard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1108-2025 DATE OF DECISION: GAJENDRA KUMAR AND ANR Versus KARVY FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED KFSL AND ORS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. **** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had total loan of Rs.29 lakhs in the year 2013 and 2016. The second floor of property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, had been mortgaged. He, however, submits that respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Faridabad, has erroneously passed the order under Section 14 of the SARF the handing over of the possession of the entire property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, instead of only the second floor. He has referred to the loan agreement entered in the year 2013 at Annexure P loans were also taken against the second floor of the Learned State counsel, upon instructions from Ms. Neha Singh, Tehsildar, Badh Kalan, submits that the possession of only that property would be handed over to respondent No.1 which is mortgaged with it or its predecessor. Heard. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 16.01.2025 … Petitioner (s) KARVY FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED KFSL AND ORS ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Kumar Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had akhs in the year 2013 and 2016. The second floor of property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, had been mortgaged. He, District Magistrate, Faridabad, has erroneously passed the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act ordering the handing over of the possession of the entire property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, instead of only the second floor. He has referred to the loan agreement entered in the year 2013 at Annexure P-1. He also submits that second floor of the aforenoted Learned State counsel, upon instructions from Ms. Neha Singh, Tehsildar, Badh Kalan, submits that the possession of only that property would which is mortgaged with it or its predecessor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had akhs in the year 2013 and 2016. The second floor of property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, had been mortgaged. He, District Magistrate, Faridabad, has AESI Act ordering the handing over of the possession of the entire property No.5WH/01, New Township, Faridabad, instead of only the second floor. He has referred to the 1. He also submits that aforenoted Learned State counsel, upon instructions from Ms. Neha Singh, Tehsildar, Badh Kalan, submits that the possession of only that property would which is mortgaged with it or its predecessor. SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.01.17 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1108-2025 -2- 4. In view of the statement of the learned State counsel, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be substantially redressed. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to look into the loan documents and ensure that only that portion of the property, which has been mortgaged with the financial institution, shall be handed over to respondent No.1. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 16.01.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.01.17 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document