IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

INDEX
S.NO(S PARTICULARS PAGE
) NO.(S)
1. COURT FEE
2. MEMO OF PARTIES
3. SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
5. APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF
CPC, 1908 FOR AD INTERIM INJUNCTION
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT.
6. VAKALATNAMA

Filed By:
PRIYA CHAUBEY, ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH
ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF
DATE:
PLACE:
 IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

MEMO OF PARTIES

XXXXXXXXX
R/o. …………
………….
………..
……………….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

1. Pnb Housing Finance Limited

At. 16/12, 3rd Floor, W.E.A. Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, Near Kotak Mahindra bank,
New Delhi.

2. Anil Babbar
S/o late Shri Jugal Kishore
R/o. Plot No. 382, Radhika Kunj,
Shalimar garden-1,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005

Presently Residing At:

G-1, Plot No. 911, Niti Khand- 1,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201014
3. Ms. Charu Gogna
W/o Anil Babber
R/o. Plot No. 382, Radhika Kunj,
Shalimar garden-1,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005

Presently Residing At:

G-1, Plot No. 911, Niti Khand- 1,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201014

4. Mr. Rajendra Kumar

S/o. Late Sh. Jugal Kishore
R/o. Plot No. 382, Radhika Kunj,
Shalimar garden-1,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005

5. Ms. Annu Aggarwal

W/o Rajendra Kumar
R/o. Plot No. 382, Radhika Kunj,
Shalimar garden-1,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arora

R/o. Plot No. 382, Radhika Kunj,
Shalimar garden-1,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005 DEFENDANTS

Filed By:
PRIYA CHAUBEY, ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH
ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF
DATE:
PLACE:

IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

 SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. The instant suit is instituted for permanent and mandatory

injunction, as the Defendant No. 1, for reasons extraneous to the
matter at hand, has served notice under Section 13(2) of the
Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest Act,
2002, by means of pasting/affixation of the said notice outside the
residential abode of the Plaintiff, i.e., MIG, Flat No. S-2, 1st Floor
at Niti Khand-1/736, residential colony, Ghaziabad (hereinafter
referred to as “the property”). The Defendant No.1 has dispatched
the aforementioned notice with the malicious intent to harass and
victimize the Plaintiff and to reap benefits from its own
wrongdoing, as the Defendant No. 1 is prima facie culpable of
acting in contravention of the Circulars, directions, guidelines and
notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to
time.
2. The Plaintiff avers that he is neither a borrower, mortgagor, nor
guarantor as per Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act. The term
“borrower” refers to an individual or entity that has received
financial assistance from a bank or financial institution, or has
provided a guarantee, mortgage, or pledge as security for the
financial assistance granted by a bank or financial institution. This
includes an individual or pooled investment vehicle that becomes a
borrower of an asset reconstruction company as a result of the
acquisition of any rights or interests of any bank or financial
institution in relation to such financial assistance, or who has
raised funds through the issuance of debt securities.

3. That the Plaintiff submits that Defendants No. 2 to 6, being private

builders, represented themselves as reputable figures in the
construction industry by showcasing their past successful projects
in Delhi-NCR and Solan, Himachal Pradesh. They conveyed to the
Plaintiff that they had completed the construction of 12 flats at Plot
No. 736, Niti Khand-I, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, which were ready
for purchase and occupation.

4. It is submitted that the Plaintiff, with the intent of acquiring

residential property, was informed through various sources and
property dealers that certain residential flats were under
construction by a Private Builder, namely Anil Babbar, i.e.,
Defendant No. 2, and Mr. Rajendra Kumar, i.e., Defendant No. 4,
and were available for purchase. Subsequently, the Plaintiff
engaged in negotiations with Defendant No. 2 and 4 on multiple
occasions to pursue the acquisition of flats for residential purposes.
All transactions pertaining to the purchase of the Flats transpired at
 their abode situated at Plot No. 911, Flat No. G-1, Niti Khand-1,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201014.
5. It is averred that subsequent to the finalization of the transaction,
Defendant No. 2 and 4 represented to the Plaintiff that they
possessed strong affiliations with various financial institutions and
could assist the Plaintiff in procuring a housing loan from said
financial institutions/banks. It is further submitted that Defendant
No. 2 and 4, with the intent of demonstrating the legitimacy and
veracity of the Property, exhibited the entire chain of documents to
the Plaintiff.

6. It is contended that, relying upon the assurances and

representations made by Defendant No. 2 and 4, the Plaintiff
finalized the transaction and remitted payment for unit MIG, Flat
No. S-2, 2nd Floor (with roof rights) measuring 55 Square meters
(Covered area) comprising two bedrooms, one drawing-cum-dining
room, one kitchen, two bathrooms, and a balcony situated at Niti
Khand-1/736, residential colony. As per the due diligence report of
the aforementioned property presented to the Plaintiff, the said
property was free from all encumbrances and possessed a
marketable title. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed between
Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff, wherein possession of the
property in question was transferred to the intervener via a
registered sale certificate document duly registered in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad. True Copy of Sale Deed is marked
and annexed hereto as Annexure:___/___.

7. It is submitted that Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 3, Defendant

No. 4, and Defendant No. 5 facilitated a meeting between the
 Plaintiff and officials of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd., G.I.C.
Housing Finance Ltd., and HDFC Housing Finance Ltd., who
assured the Plaintiff that the housing loan would be approved and
disbursed expeditiously. In reliance upon these representations, the
Plaintiff submitted the requisite documents to the aforementioned
financial institutions.

8. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendants No. 2, 3, 4, and 5,

in collusion with the Financial Institutions/Banks, procured the
loan in the name of the Plaintiff through surreptitious means by
forming a cabal with the financial institutions/banks. This
unequivocally demonstrates that from the inception, Defendants
No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 harbored a mala fide intention to defraud the
Plaintiff.

9. The Plaintiff avers that in September 2022, an official from P.N.B.

Housing Finance unexpectedly arrived at the aforementioned
property and apprised the Plaintiff that the plot had been
mortgaged to P.N.B. Housing Finance. It was only then that the
Plaintiff became cognizant of the fact that Defendant No. 2 had
obtained a loan amounting to Rs. 1,31,54,730.54/- (Rupees One
Crore Thirty-One Lakhs Fifty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred
Thirty and Fifty-Four Paise Only) by creating an equitable
mortgage and depositing the title deed of Plot No. 736, measuring
249 meters, situated at Niti Khand- I, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
U.P. – 201014 with P.N.B. Housing Finance.

10.The Plaintiff further avers that the loan was procured by Defendant
No. 2 in collusion with Defendants No. 3, 4, and 5, who were co-
 borrowers, and Mr. Rakesh Arora, i.e., Defendant No. 6, acted as a
guarantor. They all, with a premeditated scheme, not only enticed
the Plaintiff and other home buyers to purchase the flats at an
inflated price but also executed a sale deed that explicitly stated
that the aforementioned plot/property was free from all
encumbrances, including charges and liens, and that no title deed
with respect to the Plot had been mortgaged to any financial
institution/bank.

11.The Plaintiff made persistent efforts to inquire about the mortgage

and endeavored to persuade Defendant No. 2 and others to
discharge the loan amount of the aforementioned property in
question. However, much to their chagrin, Defendants No. 2 to 6
disregarded the request and intimidated the Plaintiff with grave
repercussions if they persisted in demanding repayment of the loan
by Defendants No. 2 & 4.

12.The Plaintiff has incurred substantial pecuniary damages as a result

of the fraudulent activities and forgery perpetrated by Defendants
No. 2 to 6 in collusion with the Financial Institutions/Bank.
Despite the Plaintiff’s assiduous efforts to inquire about the
mortgage and to persuade Defendant No. 2 and others to discharge
the loan amount, their endeavors proved to be futile. Consequently,
the Plaintiff lodged an F.I.R. against Defendants No. 2 to 6 on
15.08.2023 at the Indirapuram Police Station, alleging charges of
cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. True
Copy of FIR dated 15.08.2023 is marked and annexed hereto as
Annexure: ___/___.
13. The Plaintiff received a notice dated 16.06.2023 on 22.06.2023,
pursuant to Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022
(SARFAESI Act, 2022), from PNB Housing Finance Limited,
hereinafter referred to as Defendant No.2. Section 13(2) of the
aforementioned Act stipulates that:
13(2):Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured
creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in
repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his
account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor
as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require
the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities
to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice
failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all
or any of the rights under sub-section (4):

127[Provided that—

(i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as non-

performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a
borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities;
and

(ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to

enforce security interest in the same manner as provided under
this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents
executed in favour of the debenture trustee;]
14.The Plaintiff asserts that they are neither a borrower nor a
mortgagor/guarantor of the aforementioned property, as per
Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act
defines a borrower as follows:
“borrower” means 6[any person who, or a pooled investment
vehicle as defined in clause (da) of Section 2 of the Securities
Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) which,] has been
granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or
who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge
as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or
financial institution 7[and includes a person who, or a pooled
investment vehicle which,] becomes borrower of a 8[asset
reconstruction company] consequent upon acquisition by it of any
rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to
such financial assistance 9[or who has raised funds through issue
of debt securities];

15.That the Plaintiff, through their counsel, served a reply dated

________ to the notice served to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1,
in which the Plaintiff vehemently denied all the false, frivolous,
and concocted allegations of Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff informed Defendant No. 1 of the true facts relating to
Defendants No. 2 to 6 and their mala fide conduct. True Copy of
Reply Notice date ______ is marked and annexed hereto as
Annexure:___/___.

16.The Plaintiff and their family have been subjected to a life of

misery and hardship as a direct result of the malevolent actions of
the Defendant No.1. The notice issued by the Defendant No.1 is a
 blatant attempt to harass and victimize the Plaintiff, and to profit
from their own wrongdoing. The Defendant No.1 is prima facie
culpable of acting in contravention of the circulars, directives,
guidelines, and notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India
from time to time.

17.It is hereby submitted that the Defendant No. 1 has erroneously

dispatched a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2022 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that they
are neither a borrower nor a mortgagor/guarantor with respect to
the property in question. In other words, the Plaintiff asserts that
they have no legal obligation or liability concerning the
aforementioned property. Therefore, the notice issued by the
Defendant No. 1 is unwarranted and without any basis in law.

18.It is hereby averred that the Plaintiff has established a robust prima
facie case, and the balance of convenience is unequivocally tilted
in their favor. The Plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable harm
and prejudice if the relief sought in the present suit is not granted.
Conversely, no harm or prejudice will be inflicted upon the
Defendants if the prayers contained in the present suit are allowed.
In light of these circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the
interests of justice would be best served by granting the relief
sought by the Plaintiff.

19. It is hereby submitted that the cause of action to initiate the present
suit arose in favor of the Plaintiff in September 2022, when an
official from PNB Housing Finance visited the aforementioned
 property and informed the Plaintiff that it was mortgaged to PNB
Housing Finance. Subsequently, the cause of action was further
strengthened when the Plaintiff made inquiries pertaining to the
mortgage and attempted to persuade Defendants No. 2 to 6 to repay
the loan amount for the said property, but their requests were
disregarded. The cause of action was further reinforced when the
Plaintiff received a notice dated 16.06.2023 from Defendant No. 1
on 22.06.2023. It is pertinent to note that the cause of action
continues to accrue each day, as Defendant No. 1 has not provided
a written response to the reply of the notice dated 16.06.2023 sent
by Defendant No.1.

20.It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court possesses the

requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate and entertain the
present suit, as the property in question is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Furthermore, the Plaintiff
resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. As
such, this Hon’ble Court has the authority to entertain and
adjudicate upon the present suit.

21.It is hereby submitted that the present suit has been valued at
_______________ by the Plaintiff, and the appropriate court fees
of ____________ have been affixed. In the event that this Hon’ble
Court determines that there is any insufficiency in the court fees,
the Plaintiff undertakes to rectify the same. The Plaintiff
respectfully submits that all necessary steps have been taken to
ensure compliance with the applicable rules and regulations
concerning court fees.
 PRAYER
That in view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and contention
raised by the Plaintiff, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be graciously pleased to:
a. Pass a decree of permanent injunction directing the
Defendant no. 1 to stop taking any further action against the
Plaintiff under Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2022; and/or

b. Pass any order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
PRIYA CHAUBEY, ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH
ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF
DATE:
PLACE:

VERIFICATION: -

It is hereby verified at ______________ that the contents of

paragraphs ___ to ____ of the Plaint are true to the best of
my knowledge and belief, and that no material or relevant
information has been concealed therefrom. The Plaintiff
affirms that all statements contained in the aforementioned
paragraphs are accurate and complete, and that all necessary
steps have been taken to ensure the veracity of the
information provided.
 PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

AFFIDAVIT

I, ____________________S/o. __________________, aged about

___years, R/o __________________________________, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the above noted suit and as such I
am fully conversant with the facts and circumstance of the
case and able to depose to the same.
2. That I the averment contained in Paragraph ____ of the suit
has been drafted by my counsel under my instruction and
content of which are true and correct and no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed.
3. That I say the Annexure ______ are true copies of their
original.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at _______ on ____ of _____, 2023 that the
contents made in the paragraph 1-3 of the affidavit are true
and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ALONG WITH PLAINT BY THE

PLAINTIFF
S.N DETAILS OF DOCUMENT ORIGINAL MODE OF LINE OF PAG
. DOCUMENT S IN OR EXECUTIO CUSTOD E
S POWER, PHOTOCOP N/ Y NO.
POSSESSIO Y ISSUANCE/
N, OR OFFICE RECEIPT
CONTROL COPY
OR
CUSTODY
OF
1.
2.
3.
4.

PLAINTIFF
THROUGH
PRIYA CHAUBEY, ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH
ADVOCATES FOR PLAINTIFF
DATE:
PLACE:
 IN THE COURT OF __________________________________

SUIT NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

XXXXXX PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PNB HOUSING DEFENDANTS
FINANCE LIMITED
AND ORS.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 &2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR AD
INTERIM INJUNCTION

Most Respectfully Showeth: