A Bank that has initiated a proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, can be impleaded as a party in RERA proceedings – Daljeet Singh Dhillon Vs. Raipur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. – Chhattisgarh High Court

udgment/Order:

Order on Board

05/03/2025

1. Since, the common facts and grounds are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order.

2. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners are questioning the order dated 23/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of the Bank as necessary party, has been rejected. The petitioners are further questioning the order dated 31/01/2025 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners questioning the order dated 23/12/2024 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application for impleadment of Bank as necessary party has been rejected by the RERA as well as by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioners have failed to show averment in the application that they want to implead bank as necessary party because the bank has taken recourse of the provisions contained under Section 13 (4) of the SARFESI Act, 2002 against the respondents. He would further submits that though the petitioners have not mentioned in the application about initiation of proceeding under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 against the respondents/Builders by the Bank, but in a simple terms, they have mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application for impleadment of bank because the bank was involved in the financial transactions of the property in question and as such their right and interest may be directly affect. He would further submit that though the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the petitioners can implead the respondent/Bank as necessary party, but he has to show or make out a case that the Banks have taken recourse to provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 against any of the respondents/Builders.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the order of the RERA as well as order of the Appellate Authority and the application submitted by the petitioners to implead the Banks as necessary party.

5. On perusal of the application (Annexure-P/3), it is quite vivid that the in the application submitted by the petitioners before the RERA, they have submitted that the proposed respondent/Bank was involved in the financial transactions of the concerned property in question, however, it has not clearly stated about the proceeding initiated under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 against the Builder/respondents. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal as well as the RERA while dealing with the application, rejected the same only on the ground that the petitioners have not specifically pleaded that the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been initiated by the Bank against respondents and the property involved in the subject are directly involved under the proceeding of the Act, 2002.

6. If, as per the pleadings and contentions of the petitioners, it is true that the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been initiated against the respondents/builders by the proposed respondent/bank, then the impleadment application filed by the petitioners to implead the bank as necessary party, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper as also in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Others¹.

7. Hence, the petitioners are permitted to approach before the RERA by filing a fresh application and by making a specific pleading that the proposed Respondent/Bank has initiated a proceeding under Section 13 (4) of the Act against the respondent/builder. Needless to say that in the event of filing such application by the petitioners within three days, the RERA shall consider the same and shall pass necessary orders within a further period of 5 days keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India (Supra).

8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.