3 2288..0099..22002266 Court No. 236 pp WPA 14905 of 2022 Bhupesh Sethia vs. Indian Bank & Anr. Mr. Diptonil Dey, Mr. Debasis Mitra … for the petitioner. Mr. Nayeemuddin Munshi, Mr. Subatosh Dhar … for the respondents/Bank. 1. The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has, inter alia, sought for the following reliefs: “a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent bank to oust the men and agents of the respondent bank from the said flat who are presently occupying there and hand over the possession of the said flat to the petitioner with immediate effect. b) An appropriate writ/writs for quashing of the entire SARFAESI proceeding initiated by the respondent bank and/or declare it that the entire SARFAESI proceeding initiated by the respondent bank is illegal and bad in law. c) A writ of in the nature of Certiorari by commanding the concerned Respondent Bank to transmit all relevant records in relating to the said case before this Hon’ble Court so that after perusal the same a consignable justice may be granted in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect.” 2 2. According to the petitioner, he approached the respondent-bank, namely Allahabad Bank, for a housing loan to purchase a flat measuring about 550 square feet on the ground floor, being Flat No. 101 (southern portion), Block – A at Premises No.27, Dingshai Para Road, P. O. – Bally, Howrah. 3. The respondent-bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,35,000/- for purchasing the said flat in favour of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner submits that the bank subsequently collected the original deed from the petitioner and he also started repaying the EMI to the respondent-bank in connection with the said housing loan. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter dated 15th September, 2014, whereby the respondent-bank informed him that, till date, the original title deed of the said property had not been received by the said bank. The said bank further informed that non-submission of the title deed would enable the bank to start legal action against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit the original deed to the said bank at the earliest. 3 6. According to the petitioner, thereafter a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the respondent-bank against the petitioner. 7. Challenging the said proceeding, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent- bank raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. He disputes the submission of the petitioner that the original title deed was deposited by him, on the contrary, he submits that despite requests by the respondent-bank, the petitioner did not submit the original title deed in connection with the said flat to the bank. The proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act had already reached its logical conclusion. 9. Upon a query from this Court, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is unable to show or produce any document to substantiate that his client had submitted the original title deed to the respondent-bank. 10. The issue involved in the writ petition raises a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ proceeding. 11. Under such circumstances, this writ petition stands dismissed. 4 12. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 13. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)