CR-5107-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 188 Tinu Deswal M/s AU Small Finance Bank Limited and others CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. 1. Constitution has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.05.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner un Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 short, ‘the CPC’) dated 01.07.2026 passed by the trial Court. 2. bona fide purchaser of the land measuring 02 Marlas s Sakhol, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar purchased for dated 22.10.202 said premises. proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inte 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Tinu Deswal Versus M/s AU Small Finance Bank Limited and others CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.05.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner un Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 short, ‘the CPC’) during the pendency of the Civil Suit; as well as order dated 01.07.2026, passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is a purchaser of the land measuring 02 Marlas s Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar purchased for a valuable consideration through registered sa dated 22.10.2024. The petitioner is running his said premises. He was not aware that respondent No.1 had i proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH CR CR CR CR----5107 5107 5107 5107----2026 2026 2026 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Decided Decided Decided Decided on : on : on : on : 09.07 09.07 09.07 09.07.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 ...Petitioner M/s AU Small Finance Bank Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN , Advocate, Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30.05.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for during the pendency of the Civil Suit; as well as order passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is a purchaser of the land measuring 02 Marlas situated in Village Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, and the property was valuable consideration through registered sale deed . The petitioner is running his Tyre business in the aware that respondent No.1 had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial rest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the ATUL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5107-2026 SARFAESI Act’) mortgaged the property in question prior to the sale in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit, seeking protection of his possess Court has declined to grant interim protection during he pendency of the Civil Suit. Cites Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 3. 4. grant ad interim is barred once proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are initiated. the said order and also observed that in view of specific provisions under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, Civil Court is having no jurisdiction. As such, the interim relief was declined appeal is still pending for 09.09.2026 before the Appellate Court. 5. fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter once the proceedings under Section 14 of the SA initiated. 6. were mortgaged with different banks as securities for loans advanced by the banks; the borrowers had defaulted repayment of secured debts; the lessees of the borrower they are entitled to remain in possession of the secured assets. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question of law as to whether the 2026 -2- RFAESI Act’) against respondent Nos.2 & 3, who had allegedly mortgaged the property in question prior to the sale in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit, seeking protection of his possession, however, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has declined to grant interim protection during he pendency of the Civil Suit. Cites Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 I have considered the aforesaid contentions. The trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2026 declined to ad interim stay on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred once proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are iated. The Appellate Court by passing the impugned order upheld the said order and also observed that in view of specific provisions under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, Civil Court is having no jurisdiction. As such, the interim relief was declined appeal is still pending for 09.09.2026 before the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter once the proceedings under Section 14 of the SA In Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) were mortgaged with different banks as securities for loans advanced by the banks; the borrowers had defaulted repayment of secured debts; the lessees of the borrowers approach the Writ Court and claimed that they are entitled to remain in possession of the secured assets. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question of law as to whether the against respondent Nos.2 & 3, who had allegedly mortgaged the property in question prior to the sale in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit, seeking protection ion, however, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has declined to grant interim protection during he pendency of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501 Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors, 2014(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 501.... I have considered the aforesaid contentions. The trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2026 declined to stay on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred once proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are The Appellate Court by passing the impugned order upheld the said order and also observed that in view of specific provisions under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, Civil Court is having no jurisdiction. As such, the interim relief was declined, however, the appeal is still pending for 09.09.2026 before the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter once the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act have been Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), the premises were mortgaged with different banks as securities for loans advanced by the banks; the borrowers had defaulted repayment of secured debts; s approach the Writ Court and claimed that they are entitled to remain in possession of the secured assets. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question of law as to whether the ATUL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-5107-2026 appellants as tenants of the premises in the State of Maharashtra including jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and obtain the relief of injunction against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset from the appellants? 7. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as per which no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Ac 8. order does not suffer from any illegality and the petitioner is not entitled to any ad interim injunction in view of the apparent bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 9. 10. of the case on merits. 11. disposed of. 09.07 09.07 09.07 09.07.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 atulsethi Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : 2026 -3- appellants as tenants of the premises in the State of Maharashtra Mumbai will have any remedy to move these courts having jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and obtain the relief of injunction against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset from the appellants? The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the answer lies in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as per which no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Ac In view of the ratio of aforesaid decision, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the petitioner is not entitled to any ad interim injunction in view of the apparent bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Consequently, present Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, above observations will not affect the decision of the case on merits. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. .2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : appellants as tenants of the premises in the State of Maharashtra Mumbai will have any remedy to move these courts having jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and obtain the relief of injunction against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset from the appellants? Hon’ble Apex Court held that the answer lies in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as per which no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. In view of the ratio of aforesaid decision, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and the petitioner is not entitled to any ad interim injunction in view of the apparent bar on the , present Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, above observations will not affect the decision Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] [HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN] JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes No Yes No ATUL SETHI 2026.07.14 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh