23.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 2 Sandip MAT 1535 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Sri Debasis Jana Vs. The District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur & Ors. Mr. Amit Baran Dash, Mr. Kaushik Chandra Gupta, Ms. Sharmi Das …for the appellant. Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, AGP, Ms. Sourya Mukherjee …for the State. Mr. Farooque Ali, Mr. Faizan Md. Zafar …for the Canara Bank. Re : CAN 1 of 2026 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated August 13, 2026 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.A. 20069 of 2026. 3. The appellant claims to be one of the co-sharer of the property. 4 decimals out the total land has been mortgaged by the brother of the appellant against a loan. 4. The loan account of the brother was declared NPA. The bank as a secured creditor took steps under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to ‘SARFAESI Act’ in short). Although order was passed with regard to delivery of possession to the bank in accordance with the procedure laid down by the statute, the bank failed to take possession on account of laches and negligence of the administration. 5. Aggrieved by such inaction, the bank approached the writ Court. The learned single Judge passed an order directing the police authorities to render assistance to the bank for taking over possession of the mortgaged property. His Lordship directed the police authorities to assess the cost and the cost has been duly assessed and deposited. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the property is undivided. The portion of the land that was mortgaged cannot be ascertained. After the appellant came to know about the SARFAESI proceeding a partition suit was filed in which the bank is also a party. He relies on an order of status quo granted by the learned civil Court and submits that the bank cannot take possession of the portion which was not mortgaged and in respect of which the appellant had right, title and interest. It is further submitted that the police authorities have been harassing the appellant. 7. If the police authorities are harassing the appellant, the remedy of the appellant is elsewhere. 8. The proceeding under the SARFAESI Act will supersede any proceeding before any civil Court. 9. The learned civil Court was also conscious of such fact and passed the order of status quo only upon the parties and not the bank, inter alia, holding as follows:- 2 “So far as the defendant no. 3 is concerned, from the statement of plaintiff it appears that the Bank (defendant no. 3) is a secured creditor under mortgage created by defendant no. 1 and has initiated a recovery proceeding against defendant no. 1 upon default in repayment of loan. The authority and extent of mortgage, in as far as it affects the share of plaintiff, are matters to be adjudicated at the time of trial. At this interlocutory stage, there is no material warranting an order restraining the bank from exercising statutory remedies available to it. As per Section 34 of SARFESAI Act no injunction shall be granted by any civil court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred upon Bank by or under the said Act. If the right of plaintiff is actually aggrieved, he may take recourse of law before the appropriate forum. But at this stage, this court is not inclined to pass any order of injunction or status-quo against the defendant no. 3. Hence, it is ORDERED that the prayer of plaintiff for ad-interim is hereby allowed exparte against defendant no. 1. Both the parties (plaintiff and defendant no. 1) shall maintain status-quo with regard to nature, character and possession of the Ka schedule property till 02-09-2026. The prayer of ad-interim injunction against defendant no. 3 is hereby refused at this stage. Issue notice calling upon defendant no. 1 & 3 to show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt thereof as to why the prayer of plaintiff for temporary injunction shall not be granted.” 10. We do not find either from the order of the learned single Judge or from the order of the learned civil Court that the appellant has any cause of action to prefer this 3 appeal. We are informed that the appellant has already proceeded against the order passed by the ACJM, Contai, before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal. Whatever is urged before us could have easily been raised before the Tribunal. 11. Under such circumstances, we do not propose to grant any leave to appeal. We find that this appeal is in abuse of the process of Court and an attempt on the part of the borrower and his family members, to interdict the order of the learned single Judge and to stall the SARFAESI proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, all proceedings before us are dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal which shall be transmitted to the fund of the Juvenile Justice Committee, High Court. 13. Upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal being satisfied with the payment of cost as directed by us, the proceedings initiated by the appellant will be taken up by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4