SADANAND PUNDIR AND ORS v. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK AND ANR
CWP/18563/2025 · 2025-12-01
Ajay Mohan Goel
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35664 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35664 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:40985 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 18563 of 2025 Decided on : 01.12.2025 Sadanand Pundir and others …Petitioners Versus Agriculture & Rural Development Bank through its Manager and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i. Quash and set aside the impugned auction, sale proceedings and sale deed of the mortgaged property for lack of notice and violation of the petitioners' rights. ii. Direct the Respondent Bank to restore and recognize the petitioners' ownership over the said property. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2025:HHC:40985 iii. Restrain the respondents from interfering with or creating any third-party interests in the property, during the pendency of this petition.”
2. The petitioners are seeking the quashing of an auction which has already taken place on 09.10.2025, in terms whereof, the property in issue stands auctioned, which was a mortgaged property on account of the non-repayment of the loan, which was taken by Smt. Murto Devi and Rupi Devi, through General Power of Attorney holder Mr. Sadanand Pundir, petitioner No.1.
3. This Court is of the considered view that issues raised herein should be agitated before the learned Civil Court because disputed questions of fact are involved herein and it is not for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate these issues.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that filing of a Civil Suit is not a speedy and efficacious remedy, is outrightly rejected because Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, gives efficacious remedy to a party which approaches a Civil Court seeking any interim order.
3 2025:HHC:40985
5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court with regard to the issues raised in this petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
December 01, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)