C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 19.08.26 D/L Sl-19 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 4258 of 2026 Arindam Sengupta Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Sanjiv Agarwal, ….for the petitioner. . Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh, Ms. Madha Shaw, Ms. Anjali Mishra, ….for the Bank. 1. The petitioner alleges negligence on the part of the respondent Bank in having misplaced the title deeds pertaining to immovable properties mortgaged with Bank for the purpose of securing credit facilities availed of by the petitioner from the said Bank. 2. The petitioner had availed of certain credit facilities from the respondent Bank. The same fell in default and the subject loan account had to be classified as a non performing asset (NPA). Thereafter, the petitioner entered into a one time settlement with the Bank and repaid the settled sum in terms of the settlement. 3. The petitioner thereafter, sought for release of the title deeds that had been deposited with the Bank for creation of equitable mortgage. At this point of time, the petitioner was informed that the title deeds had been misplaced. 4. Alleging negligence on the part of the Bank and 2 seeking compensation on such ground, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Bank has acted negligently in misplacing the petitioner’s title deeds thereby rendering the petitioner title obscure and as such, the respondent Bank should be directed to appropriately compensate the petitioner. 6. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank takes a point of maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has not locus standi to press the present writ petition. He submits that the properties whereon mortgage had been created in favour of the Bank have already been sold by the petitioner to a third party. In such regard, he produces a copy of a deed of conveyance dated March 27, 2025 and a print out from the relevant website of the registering (i.e. wbregistration.gov.in) to demonstrate that both the properties have been sold to a third party. 7. Reliance is also placed on an unreported decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Peerless Tea & Industries Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank and Anr. (WPO/303/2015) delivered on May 18, 2023 in such regard. 8. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the assertion of the 3 respondent Bank that the properties, in respect whereof the writ petition has been filed, have indeed been sold. 9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 10. Since it is not disputed that the properties (in respect whereof the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition) have already been sold off by the petitioner prior to the institution of this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is clearly not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. 11. The Peerless Tea & Industries Ltd. (supra) is a case in point where, under similar circumstances, this Court had dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitioner therein having transferred the property did not have locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 12. In such view of the matter, WPA 4258 of 2026 stands disposed of without passing any order as prayed for. No Costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)