JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for the respondent bank. 2. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent bank to release the property of the petitioner no.1 located at Patta No.1387, Dag No.26/1665, Golaghat Road, NH-39, Dimapur, Nagaland measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 14 Lechas (25056 sqft.) with single storeyed RCC building from the mortgage taken as security for the Cash Credit facility provided to the petitioner no.2 by the respondent bank. 3. The further prayer of the petitioners is to direct the respondent bank to keep the property belonging to another guarantor, Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain, a 7 storeyed building situated at Patta No.40, Dag No.288, Old Daily Market, Dimapur measuring 0 Bigha, 1 Katha, 17 Lechas (5328 sqft.) as collateral security for the Cash Credit facility provided to the petitioner no.2. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent bank to close Bank Guarantee facility of Rs.6.00 crores given to the petitioner no.2 by the respondent bank, as per letter dated 24.07.2024 issued by the petitioner no.2 to the respondent bank. 4. The petitioners’ counsels submits that the petitioner no.2 which is a Proprietorship Firm had obtained a Cash Credit facility from the respondent bank, by opening CCA No.50153993251 having a sanction limit of Rs.21.00 crores. The total amount of credit facility was divided into 2 parts. Firstly, Cash Credit was given for Rs.4.00 crores, while 17 crores was to be utilized for the purpose of bank guarantees. The bank thereafter issued a sanction letter dated 20.06.2013 to the petitioner no.2, by keeping 4 immovable properties as security with plant, machineries and 20% margin on it. The said facility was extended from year to year. 5. The petitioners’ further case is that the petitioner no.1 and two others were guarantors for the petitioner no.2, who had availed of a CCA facility and Bank Guarantee facility from the Bank. The 4 immovable properties belonged to the petitioner no.1, one James Akam Magingme and one Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain. The petitioner no.2, vide letter dated 05.12.2017, requested the bank for reduction of limit of bank guarantees made available to the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 further prayed for continuing to maintain the cash credit limit as had been originally sanctioned. 6. The petitioner no.2, vide letter dated 05.12.2017, requested the bank for reduction of limit of bank guarantees made available to the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 further prayed for continuing to maintain the cash credit limit as had been originally sanctioned. 6. The bank was thereafter pleased to review and renew the cash credit and the bank guarantee facilities, in response to the petitioners’ letter dated 05.12.20127, wherein the cash credit was renewed at Rs.4.00 crores and the limit of bank guarantees was reduced to 6.00 crores from Rs.17.00 crores, in terms of sanction letter dated 05.04.2018 issued by the Assistant General Manager of the bank. The respondent bank also released 2 properties out of the four properties belonging to Shri James Akam Magingme and Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain. 7. As the petitioner no.2 had a dispute with the bank in respect of encashment of the 4 bank guarantees valued at Rs.6,04,40,057/- on 22.03.2018, in favour of one Engineering Projects India Limited, the petitioners wanted to close the bank guarantee facility provided to the petitioner no.2. 8. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioner no.2 has paid all the money with regard to the encashed bank guarantees to the bank along with interest. However, Money Suit No.10/2018 has been filed by the petitioner no.2 against the bank for recovery of the interest that had been charged on the encashed bank guarantees, as according to the petitioner no.2, the conditional bank guarantee had been illegally allowed to be encashed by the Bank. The petitioner no.2 had also filed Civil Suit No.14/2019 against the respondent. 9. The petitioners further case is that the combined market value of the two remaining properties which were still held as security by the respondent bank in respect of the Cash Credit facility, is now Rs.11,95,62,463/-. The fair market value of the property of the petitioner no.1 is Rs.5,50,84,817/-, while the fair market value of the property of Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain is Rs.6,44,77,646/-. 10. Thus, the petitioners case is that when the business connection between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent bank is only with respect to cash credit facility for Rs.4.00 crores, the respondent bank should not be allowed to keep the two properties as security, having a combined market value of approximately Rs.12 crores, as this was causing loss to the petitioner no.1, as one property could be used as security/mortgage. 11. 11. The petitioners’ counsel submits that if the property of the petitioner no.1 is released, the same can be rented out by the petitioners to enable him to earn some money. In the alternative, the petitioners’ counsel also submits that even if the respondent bank does not release the property of the petitioner no.1, the bank can at least issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner no.1, to enable the petitioner no.1 to let out the property to enable him to earn money, without disturbing the agreement made between the parties. 12. The counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand submits that when there are alternative remedies available under the Civil Court and the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Court should not entertain the present writ petition. The respondent’s counsel further submits that there is no violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioners and that the writ jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked, only to settle a private dispute between private parties. 13. The respondent’s further case is that the release of the securities is always subject to the bank’s satisfaction of ongoing exposure, conduct of account and security coverage. Further, the bank had already released 2 properties, one belonging to James Akam Magingme and the other to Nirmal Kumar Jain, who has not been made a party in the present writ petition. 14. The counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegal charging of interest and the same has been done as per sanction and the RBI guidelines. He also submits that as the petitioners have approached the Civil Court by way of Money Suit No. 10/2018 and Civil Suit No. 14/2019, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The allegation regard illegal encashment of Bank Guarantees is the subject matter of the civil suits and due to interim orders, interest payable by the petitioners has accumulated to Rs. 2.7 cross approximately, which the petitioner no.2 has not paid. As such, no request for release of the property of the respondent no.1 can be entertained at this stage, as the agreement of guarantee executed by the petitioner no.1 provides that the guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee and shall remain in operation in respect of all subsequent transactions. 2.7 cross approximately, which the petitioner no.2 has not paid. As such, no request for release of the property of the respondent no.1 can be entertained at this stage, as the agreement of guarantee executed by the petitioner no.1 provides that the guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee and shall remain in operation in respect of all subsequent transactions. He further submits that the bank is fully within its right to secure its outstanding exposure and until payment of the entire outstanding amount is made, the bank cannot release the property of the petitioner no.1. He also submits that the land valuation of the 2 (two) properties, as mentioned by the petitioners, is not binding upon the bank. Security release decisions would have to depend not only of the property value, but also on liquidation of loan amount. He submits that the outstanding CAA facility at Rs. 4 crores is still secured by the two remaining properties. He also submits that due to an interim order passed in the Title Suit, the respondent bank has been stopped from charging interest on the loan account. However, the un-charged interest has accumulated on the loan account. As the petitioner no.1 is a guarantor for the loan facility taken by the petitioner no.2, until and unless the entire dues of the bank is paid, the prayer for release of the mortgaged property of the petitioner no.1 or closing the Bank Guarantee (BG) facility, is not maintainable. 15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 16. As can be seen from the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the bank had extended the Cash Credit (CC) facility of Rs. 4 crores and 4 Bank Guarantees of Rs. 17 crores to the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no.1, Nirmal Kr. Jain and one James Akam Maringme had stood as guarantors, by depositing their land documents/property as security/mortgage. The limit in the Bank Guarantees were reduced to Rs. 6 crores on a subsequent date, while the Cash Credit facility remained at Rs.4 lakhs. Two out of the 4(four) properties were released by the bank thereafter. However, the 2 properties of petitioner no.1 and Nirmal Kumar Jain, who is not impleaded as a party, have continued to remain with the bank as security. 6 crores on a subsequent date, while the Cash Credit facility remained at Rs.4 lakhs. Two out of the 4(four) properties were released by the bank thereafter. However, the 2 properties of petitioner no.1 and Nirmal Kumar Jain, who is not impleaded as a party, have continued to remain with the bank as security. The 4 Bank Guarantees having been encashed by one Engineering Projects India Ltd., the petitioner no.2 has filed 2(two) cases in the Civil Courts against the respondent bank. 17. The case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner no.1 should be released, as the market value of the remaining property of Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, who is also a guarantor, covers the Cash Credit facility of Rs. 4 crores. The bank having stated that it did not accept the market valuation of the properties which have been kept as security, this Court is not the authority to determine as to whether the said valuation made by the petitioner no.1 through any agency or by themselves, is the correct market valuation of the properties. Further, the stand of the respondent bank that there is accumulated interest of Rs. 2.7 crores, clearly go to show that the property value of only one property out of the two, would not secure the loan account given by the bank. 18. With regard to the alternative prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) should be issued by the Bank, to allow the petitioner no.1 to lease part of the mortgaged property, the respondent bank in para 19 of their affidavit has stated that the same cannot be accepted, as creation of third party rights over mortgaged assets, may affect the enforceability of the security interest of the bank. 19. The above being said, as the dispute pertaining to Bank Guarantees between the petitioner no.2 and the Bank is already pending, vide Money Suit No.10/2018 and Civil Suit No. 14/2019, before the Civil Court in Dimapur, this Court is of the view that the petitioner no.1 should also implead herself in the said cases with her grievance. 20. As the alternative efficacious remedy available has been resorted to by the petitioner no.2, this Court is of the view that all issues can finally be adjudicated by the concerned Civil Court. 20. As the alternative efficacious remedy available has been resorted to by the petitioner no.2, this Court is of the view that all issues can finally be adjudicated by the concerned Civil Court. Accordingly, as the issue raised pertains to disputed questions of facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, especially when the issues have to be decided on the basis of evidence. Further, the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and as such, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum, for resolving their private dispute and not a Writ Court. 21. The Supreme Court in the case of Kolanjiammal (D) through LRs Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District and another [2025 Live Law SC 1108] has held that pendency of a writ proceeding is not a ground to not avail alternative remedies. Accordingly, as there are alternative remedies available, this Court is not inclined to exercise it’s discretion in this case. 22. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. 23. There shall be no order as to costs.