JUDGMENT : By the Court.-Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - Bank praying for the following reliefs : ''(a). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2; (b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 to pass fresh order on the Bank's application dated 17.2.2018 in order to hand over the actual physical possession of the mortgaged property (specifically detailed in the body of the writ petition in Para No. 4) to the Petitioner Bank within a stipulated period;'' 3. By order dated 6.7.2022, this Court directed the respondent No. 1 (State of U.P. through the District Magistrate, Agra), the respondent No. 2 (The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Agra and the respondent No. 5 (Abhimanyu Singh Director, Eena Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd., Agra) to file counter-affidavit. The order dated 6.7.2022 is reproduced below: ''The petitioner is the bank, whose application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act') has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is a temporary injunction order passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Agra in Suit No. 1258 of 2020 filed by the respondent No. 5/tenant in which the bank is not a party and since temporary injunction is operating, therefore, possession of the secured asset cannot be given. Prima facie, it appears that neither the civil suit is maintainable nor the application of the bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act ought to have been rejected on the ground of temporary injunction obtained by the tenant, when the bank was not a party in the suit and therefore, the temporary injunction so obtained would not be operative against the bank in respect of the secured asset. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the aforesaid temporary injunction has been obtained on the basis of an alleged unregistered lease deed dated 1.8.2010 for a period of 29 years and 8 months which, prima facie, was required to be compulsorily registered in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and failure of registration would attract the consequences under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It further appears that the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on the application of the petitioner/bank was passed by the competent authority on 26.8.2018 by the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Agra. The respondent No. 4/owner of the secured asset filed S.A. No. 113 of 2018 in which there is not even a whisper about the tenancy of the respondent No. 5. The aforesaid S.A. was partly allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by order dated 30.3.2019 on the ground that opportunity of hearing to the owner/borrower was not afforded by the ADM (F & R), Agra while passing the order dated 26.2.2018 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the order was quashed and it was directed that both the parties shall appear before the ADM (F & R), Agra on 30.4.2019, who shall decide the matter afresh following principles of natural justice. It appears that, thereafter, the respondent No. 5 (alleged tenant) filed a Suit No. 1258 of 2020 without impleading the bank as defendant in which an interim order was passed despite bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court created under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Now by the impugned order, on the ground of temporary injunction in the aforesaid suit, the application of the petitioner/bank has been rejected by the ADM (F & R), Agra dated 17.2.2022. In view of the facts as briefly noted above, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are directed to file counter-affidavit within a week in which they shall specifically state that how the temporary injunction obtained by the respondent No. 5 is binding on the petitioner-bank when bank is not party in the suit. They shall further state that how the suit is maintainable in respect of the secured asset in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent Nos. They shall further state that how the suit is maintainable in respect of the secured asset in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall show-cause how they overlooked the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, and the order of this Court dated 11.11.2021 in Writ Petition No. 28839 of 2021 and the order dated 24.8.2021 in Writ Petition No. 7126 of 2021 and the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad dated 30.3.2019 in S.A. No. 113 of 2018. Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on 13.7.2022.'' 4. Pursuant to the aforequoted order dated 6.7.2022, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit on 13.7.2022 while the respondent No. 5 prayed for and was granted three days further time to file counter-affidavit. However, the respondent No. 5 has chosen only to file short counter-affidavit dated 20.7.2022. On 20.7.2022, this Court passed the following order: ''Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Short counter-affidavit filed today by the respondent No. 5 and the rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed today by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has produced before us a copy of plaint of O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 alongwith copy of affidavit, list of documents relied upon by the plaintiff and copies of such documents which as produced are kept on record. The respondent No. 5 is directed to file a supplementary counter-affidavit annexing therewith the aforementioned entire documents i.e. copy of plaint etc. We also direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the entire records relating to the order dated 17.2.2022. Put up tomorrow for further hearing at 10 a.m..'' 5. On 21.7.2022, this Court passed the following order: ''Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. Sri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 prays for and is granted three days' further time to enable the respondent No. 5 to file supplementary counter-affidavit in compliance to the order dated 20.7.2022. On 21.7.2022, this Court passed the following order: ''Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. Sri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 prays for and is granted three days' further time to enable the respondent No. 5 to file supplementary counter-affidavit in compliance to the order dated 20.7.2022. We also direct the Registrar General to inform this Court on the next date fixed, the name of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra who passed the interim order dated 7.12.2020 in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 (Sri Abhimanyu Singh v. Smt. Rupa Singh and others). Put up as a fresh case for further hearing on 26.7.2022 on 10:00 a.m. Original Record as produced by Sri Nimai Das, is returned to him with a direction to produce it again on the next date fixed.'' 6. By order dated 26.7.2022, this Court directed the Registrar General to comply with the order dated 21.7.2022 and disclose the name of Judicial Officer, who passed the interim order dated 7.12.2020 in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020. In compliance to the said order, the Registrar General has submitted a note dated 26.7.2022 based on the report of the District Judge, Agra that the interim order dated 7.12.2020 in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 (Sri Abhimanyu Singh v. Smt. Roopa Singh and others) was passed by Sri Prashant Kumar - II, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra who is presently posted in District Judgship, Kushinagar at Padrauna. Submissions : 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are in collusion and have played fraud upon this Court as well as upon D.R.T. Even after knowing well that the property in question is mortgaged in favour of the Bank and recovery proceedings are going on, yet the respondent No. 5 in collusion with respondent No. 4 has filed a suit for injunction in which they have not impleaded the petitioner bank as defendant. Even though the respondent No. 5 has not filed a copy of any alleged rent agreement or lease deed which has been admitted by him in Court to be an unregistered one. Even though the respondent No. 5 has not filed a copy of any alleged rent agreement or lease deed which has been admitted by him in Court to be an unregistered one. An unregistered lease deed cannot be executed for more than 11 months whereas the respondent No. 5 has alleged that it is a lease deed commencing from the year 2010 and ending in the year 2039 which is totally impermissible in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 which could not even looked into in view of provisions of Section 17 read with Section 69 of the Registration Act 1908. The respondent No. 5 has concealed the material facts even before this Court while not filing the copy of the alleged lease deed and copy of the plaint. The respondent No. 5 is the son of the respondent No. 4 i.e. the mortagor and both are in collusion. He relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1371 of 2019 (Bajarang Shyam Sunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India and another) decided on 11.9.2019. 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that since there was an order of status-quo dated 7.12.2020, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 (Abhimanyu Singh v. Smt. Roopa Singh and others) directing for status-quo, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has correctly passed the impugned order inasmuch as he could not violate the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the respondent No. 5 became tenant of the secured assets under the rent agreement dated 1.8.2010 for a period of 11 months @ Rs. 500/- per month, which later on was extended till the year 2039. He submits that since the respondent No. 5 is the tenant in the house in question, therefore, he cannot be dispossessed from the house in question in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He further submits that the respondent No. 5 is running a Cable T.V. Network in the name and style of M/s. ENA Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd. which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot be dispossessed from the house in question. Discussion and Findings : 10. He further submits that the respondent No. 5 is running a Cable T.V. Network in the name and style of M/s. ENA Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd. which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot be dispossessed from the house in question. Discussion and Findings : 10. The petitioner is a bank, whose application under Section 14 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act') has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is a temporary injunction order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 filed by the respondent No. 5/tenant in which the bank is not a party and since temporary injunction is operating, therefore, possession of the secured asset cannot be given. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 11. It is admitted fact of the case that the respondent No. 4 namely Smt. Roopa Singh wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, resident of 247-Jaipur House, Agra is the owner of the secured asset who has mortgaged it with the petitioner - bank for loan taken by M/s. Gayatri Development well Private Limited. The respondent No. 5 is the son of the respondent No. 4. Since the borrower defaulted in payment of bank dues, therefore, the petitioner bank initiated proceedings for recovery of its dues amounting to Rs. 2,83,82,364/- as on 15.7.2017 and interest and other expenses. The petitioner bank moved an application dated 8.1.2018 before the respondent No. 1 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, supported by an affidavit. Application was registered as Case No. D-201801010000965 and the order dated 26.2.2018 was passed by the District Magistrate allowing the application. Aggrieved with that order, the respondent No. 4 namely Smt. Roopa Singh wife of Pawan Kumar Singh filed S.A. No. 113 of 2018 which was disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Allahabad by order dated 30.3.2019 remitting back the matter to the respondent No. 2 to pass an order afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the aforesaid Section 14 Application of the petitioner was registered by the respondent No. 2 as Case No. D202001010003247. Thereafter, the aforesaid Section 14 Application of the petitioner was registered by the respondent No. 2 as Case No. D202001010003247. Since the aforesaid application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was being kept pending by the respondent No. 2, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 28839 of 2021 which was disposed of by order dated 11.11.2021 in terms of the judgment in Writ-C No. 7126 of 2021, decided on 24.8.2021. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order of this Court is reproduced below: ''Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the instant proceedings be concluded necessarily within a period 30 days' unless there is any legal impediment in the nature of any stay order obtained by the competent Court.'' 12. Thereafter in the aforesaid pending application of the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent No. 5 namely Abhimanyu Singh Director, Eena Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd., Agra filed an objection dated 30.12.2021 on the ground that physical possession of the property cannot be given to the petitioner inasmuch as he (the respondent No. 5) is the tenant on the strength of a lease agreement dated 1.8.2010 which is effective till 31.12.2039. 13. In Paras 3, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15 of his short counter-affidavit, the respondent No. 5 has stated as under : ''3. That the secured assets No. 247 Jaipur House was lease out by respondent No. 4 in favour of Director of Ena Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd. namely Pawan Kumar Singh Agreement dated 1.8.2010, initially lease was agreed for a period of 11 months on rent of 500/- but later on it was extended till 2039 on depositing of Rs. 7 Lacs as advance money and rectified rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. That the petitioner bank was approved a credit facility to Gayatri development Pvt. Ltd. on the mortgage property Khasra No. 831, 832, 838, 839, Mauza Sikandra Bahistabad, Agra but later on Plot No. 247 Jaipur house, Lohamandi Ward, Agra was substituted on the above mentioned Khasra Numbers on 31.12.2012 with duly signature by assistant General Manager S.N. Singh and Gayatri Development Pvt. Ltd. Director Devendar Dixit. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the notification of the credit facility dated 31.12.2012 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-2 to this affidavit. 6. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the notification of the credit facility dated 31.12.2012 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-2 to this affidavit. 6. That it is noteworthy that petitioner's bank and Gayatri Development Pvt. Ltd. were substituted the Plot No. 247 Jaipur House in which Rupa Singh was added as the Guarantor for collateral security, purpose behind that was just to eviction the business of Ena Cable Network from the House No. 247, Jaipur House. After the substitution of Security, a credit facility was also enhanced from Rs. 245 lacs to 270 lacs and this fact itself verifying from the terms and condition of between petitioner bank and Director of Gayatri Development Pvt. Ltd. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the Terms and condition of the credit facility between petitioner's bank and Director of Tayatri Development Pvt. Ltd. is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-3 to this affidavit. 12. That the secured property 247 Jaipur House was lease out in 2010 while the credit facility in favour of respondent No. 2 by petitioner bank was rendered in 2012 and thus it is quite clear that the property was lease out before the secured to the bank. 14. That the petitioner bank well known while sanctioning the credit facility to Gayatri Development Pvt. Ltd. that the House No. 247 Jaipur house had already given on rent by respondent No. 4 to Director of Ena Cable T.V. Network namely Pawan Singh, despite of That petitioner bank sanction the credit facility in favour of respondent No. 3 by substituting the secured assets 247 Jaipur House with collusion of respondent No. 4. 15. That the Civil Suit for Interim Injunction No. 1258 of 2020 Abhimanyu Singh v. Smt. Rupa Singh has not finally been decided and the Court concerned vide its order dated 7.12.2020 has simply ordered for status quo and further the case is listing for final hearing, therefore petitioner bank has ample opportunity to appear in the above civil suit and defending its grievances. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the order of Civil Judge Senior Division Agra dated 7.12.2020 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-5 to this affidavit.'' 14. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true copy of the order of Civil Judge Senior Division Agra dated 7.12.2020 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-5 to this affidavit.'' 14. The application of the petitioner-bank for physical possession by the impugned order dated 17.2.2022; was rejected by the respondent No. 2 observing as under: ^^esjs }kjk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd cSad dh vksj ls cU/kd lEifRr dk dCtk fnyk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= ,oa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fjV ;kfpdk esa fdjk;snkj Jh vfHkeU;q flag dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k vkSj uk gh ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dks ;g voxr djk;k x;k gS fd mDr ca/kd lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus dk vns'k ek0 vij flfoy tt ¼lh0 fM0½] vkxjk }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA blh Ádkj Jh vfHkeU;q flag }kjk Hkh okn la[;k 1258@2020 esa ek0 vij flfoy tt ¼lh0 fM0½] vkxjk dks lEifr ds ca/kd gksus dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nh x;h gS vkSj uk gh cSad dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-11-2021 esa ;kfpdk la[;k 7126@2021 fnukad 24-08-2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh x;h gS ,oa fnuakd 24-08-2021 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa Li"V #i ls ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS fd fdlh fof/kd ck/kk tSls fd l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk LFkxu vkns'k vkfn u gksus dh n'kk esa ;kfpdk 30 fnu esa fuLrkfjr djsaA orZeku Ádj.k esa ek0 vij flfoy tt ¼lh0 fM0½] vkxjk }kjk ca/kd lEifr ds lEcU/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk;s j[kus ds vkns'k ds ÁHkkoh jgrs ca/kd lEifRr ij ;kph cSad dks HkkSfrd dCtk fnyk;k tkuk mfpr Árhr ugha gksrk gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospuk ,oa ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk flfoy] vkxjk }kjk fn;s x;s fof/kd vfHker ls lger gksrs gq;s ÁLrqr ;kfpdk fnukad 17-01-2018 vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA ;kph cSad l{ke ek0 flfoy U;k;ky;] vkxjk esa mifLFkr gksdj viuk i{k j[kdj LFkxu vkns'k fujLr djkus ds mijkUr iqu% ;kfpdk ÁLrqr djus gsrq Lora= gSA i=koyh okn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA** 15. We find that the respondent No. 5 namely Abhimanyu Singh is the son of Pawan Kumar Singh and the respondent No. 4 namely Smt. Roopa Singh is mother. Thus, Pawan Kumar Singh and Roopa Singh are husband and wife and the respondent No. 5 - Abhimanyu Singh is their son. 16. We find that the respondent No. 5 namely Abhimanyu Singh is the son of Pawan Kumar Singh and the respondent No. 4 namely Smt. Roopa Singh is mother. Thus, Pawan Kumar Singh and Roopa Singh are husband and wife and the respondent No. 5 - Abhimanyu Singh is their son. 16. Pursuant to our order dated 20.7.2022, the respondent No. 5 has produced before us a copy of plaint of O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 filed by him. Perusal of the plaint shows that the respondent No. 5 has consciously suppressed the fact that Roopa Singh (the defendant No. 1) and Eena Cable T.V. Network Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor Sri Pawan Kumar Singh (the defendant No. 2) are his parents. Alongwith the plaint, a copy of alleged unregistered lease agreement dated 1.8.2010 was filed by which it has been shown that Roopa Singh has given the secured asset in question on rent of Rs. 500/- per month for 11 months to her husband Pawan Kumar Singh. According to the plaintiff of the suit/respondent No. 5 herein, that unregistered rent deed dated 1.8.2010 allegedly executed by Roopa Singh (respondent No. 4 herein) authorised the defendant No. 2 (Pawan Kumar Singh) to assign, transfer, lease, mortgage, sublet or grant lease and licence or transfer or part with or sell the property to any person/company etc. Such an alleged instrument needs compulsory registration in view of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 inasmuch as according to the respondent No. 5, it created a right in Pawan Kumar Singh in respect of immovable property in question to assign, transfer, lease, mortgage, sublet, transfer of property etc. Such an alleged instrument cannot be received as evidence of any transaction effecting the property in question or conferring the aforesaid powers in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. As per story developed in paragraph-3 of the plaint, the alleged registered lease deed dated 23.2.2019 was executed by Pawan Kumar Singh in favour of his son Abhimanyu Singh (respondent No. 5) in respect of the secured asset in question and not by its owner namely Roopa Singh (respondent No. 4). As per story developed in paragraph-3 of the plaint, the alleged registered lease deed dated 23.2.2019 was executed by Pawan Kumar Singh in favour of his son Abhimanyu Singh (respondent No. 5) in respect of the secured asset in question and not by its owner namely Roopa Singh (respondent No. 4). This alleged registered lease deed is for a period of 29 years from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2039, which was executed on 23.2.2019, i.e. much after the secured asset in question was mortgaged and the recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the petitioner - bank in respect of secured asset to recover the dues. Neither the alleged unregistered agreement nor alleged registered deeds were ever brought to the notice of the authorities/DRT nor any such objection was raised although the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are mother and son. Thus, the facts and circumstances noted above and the effect of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, leaves no manner of doubt that the alleged unregistered lease agreement dated 1.8.2010 was between the respondent No. 4, i.e. Roopa Singh and her husband Pawan Kumar Singh and, thereafter, the alleged rent lease deed 23.2.2019 executed by Pawan Kumar Singh in favour of his son Abhimanyu Singh (respondent No. 4) are nothing but a manipulated and fraudulent piece of paper which cannot deprive the petitioner - bank for physical possession of the secured asset in question under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 17. 17. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra passed the interim order dated 7.12.2020 in O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 (Sri Abhimanyu Singh v. Roopa Singh and others), which is reproduced below: ^^fnukad&07@12@2020 i=koyh is'k gqbZA iqdkj ij oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkrA i=koyh is'k gqbZA oknhx.k dh vksj ls varfje fu"ks/kkKk gsrq ÁkFkZuki= 8x e; 'kiFki= 9x ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ÁkFkZuki= 8x e; 'kiFki= 9x ij oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks ,d i{kh; #i ls lquk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr Ái=ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA Oknh dh vksj ls dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlus Áfroknh la0 2 us Áfroknh la0 1 ls oknxzLr lEifRr dks yht ,xzhesUV fnukafdr 01-08-2010 ds ek/;e ls 500@&#i;s Áfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;s ij fy;k FkkA yht ,xzhesUV fnukafdr 01-08-2010 esa ;g Li"V #i ls mfYyf[kr gS fd Áfroknh la0 2 oknxzLr lEifRr dks vkxs ca/kd j[k ldrk gS ;k fdlh vU; dks fdjk;s ij Hkh ns ldrk gSA Áfroknh la0 2 }kjk lEifRr la0 247 t;iqj gkml] yksgke.Mh okMZ vkxjk dh ckcr oknh ds i{k esa fnukad 23-02-2019 dks ,d yht ,xzhesUV fnukad 01-01-2011 ls 31-12-2039 rd 2000@& #i;s Áfrekg dh nj ls fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k FkkA Áfroknh la0 1 o 2 nqfHkZlaf/k dj oknh dks oknxzLr lEifRr ls tcjnLrh fcuk fof/kd ÁfØ;k viuk;s gq;s csn[ky djuk pkgrs gSaA ;fn Áfroknhx.k ,slk djus esa lQy gks tkrs gSa rks oknh dks viw.kZuh; {kfr dkfjr gksxh vkSj mldk okn nk;j djus dk mn~ns'; gh foQy gks tk;sxkA Oknh dh vksj ls vius dFku ds leFkZu esa yht ,xzhesUV fnukafdr 01-08-2010 9x@6 yxk;r 9x@9] vflLesaV 9x @ 10 o 9@11] fdjk;kukek fnukafdr 23-02-2019 9x@13 ls 9x@16] lkfVZfQdsV vkWQ budkjiksjs'ku 9x@17] jftLVªs'ku lkfVZfQdsV 9x@18 yxk;e 9x@20] bZ0 ,u0 ,0 Vh oh usVodZ ls lacaf/kr Ái= 9x@21 yxk;r 9x@24] Lo;a ds vk/kkj dkMZ 9x@25 o 9x@26] lgk0 vfHk;Urk lEifRr] vkxjk fodkl Ákf/kdj.k }kjk Jherh #ik flag dks fy[kk x;k i= fnukafdr 19-07-18 9x@27] pkyku QkeZ 9x@28] #ik flag }kjk Jheku ftykf/kdkjh@rglhynkj lnj dks fy[ks i= 9x@29] 'kiFki= 9x@30] c;ku larks"k xqIrk 9x@31] c;ku iou lkjkLor 9x@32] #ik flag }kjk lfpo vkxjk fodkl Ákf/kdj.k dks fy[ks i= fnukafdr 01-07-10 9x@33] lkekpkj i= dh dfVax ix@34] bZ0 ,u0 ,0 dscy Vh oh usVodZ ds uke iathd`r okgu ds iath;u Áek.k i= 9x@35 o QksVkxzkQ 9x@36 o 37] fdjk;k ÁkfIr dh jlhnsa 9x@38 o 9x@39 dh Nk;kÁfr;ka nkf[ky dh x;h gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k Ái=ksa ds voyksdu ls orZeku Ádj.k esa okn ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, rFkk oknxzLr lEifRr dks lqjf{kr o lajf{kr j[kus ds mn~ns'; ls oknxzLr lEifRr ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr dk;e j[kus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxkA vkns'k rnuqlkj i{kdkjksa dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknxzLr lEifRr ds laca/k esa ;FkkfLFkfr dk;e j[ksaxsaA oknh vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 lhihlh dh vuqikyu vfoyEc djsaA i=koyh okLrs fuLrkj.k 8x fnukad 21-12-2020 dks is'k gksA** 18. We are unable to understand that how and under what circumstances the afore-quoted interim order has been passed when the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra who himself has noted that the alleged unregistered lease agreement dated 1.8.2010 executed by Roopa Singh in favour of her husband Pawan Kumar Singh conferring right to him to mortgage and sublet etc. The alleged unregistered rent deed is hit by the provisions of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The aforesaid interim order could not have been passed as the secured asset in question was mortgaged with the bank and the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, the aforesaid O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 could not have been entertained by the Civil Judge. 19. Although all the facts as noted in forgoing paragraphs of this judgment were well within the knowledge of the respondent No. 2 and yet he passed the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 on the alleged legal advice of the District Government Counsel (Civil), Agra dated 5.1.2022. 20. For all the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Case No. 03247 of 2020 (Computerised Case No. D202001010003247) (Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Gayatri Development well Private Limited) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass an order afresh for physical possession over the secured asset in question to the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Since the O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 is barred by provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the aforesaid O.S. No. 1258 of 2020 pending in the Court of Civil Judge/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, is herby dismissed. 21. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.