1. Heard Mr. TD Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the "Amount Lien" / debit-freeze / attachment marked by the respondent-Bank on Savings Bank Account No. 216701500782 maintained at ICICI Bank, Badharghat Branch, Agartala, insofar as the same is founded upon Car Loan LAN-LANGY00034881108 (already closed) or upon Gold Loan Account No. 216705001633 (already specifically secured by pledged gold and already injuncted), to be illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to lift / remove the said lien / freeze forthwith and to restore full debit and credit operation of Savings Bank Account No. 216701500782, including honouring of self-cheques and withdrawal of the treasury credit of Rs. 72,600/- dated 09.02.2024 and of all subsequent lawful credits;
iii. issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to produce, and to serve upon the petitioner, a speaking statement of account showing, if any live gold-loan account remains outstanding, the exact outstanding principal, interest and charges as on date, and to permit the petitioner to regularise /renew / repay such live account in accordance with the contract, without keeping the savings account under a blanket freeze pending such regularisation;
iv. restrain respondents Nos. 1 to 3, during the pendency of this writ petition, from appropriating, adjusting or intercepting any credit lying in or coming into Savings Bank Account No. 216701500782 towards Car Loan LAN-LANGY00034881108 or towards Gold Loan Account No. 216705001633;
v. award costs of this petition to the petitioner; and
vi. pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and administrative propriety.”
3. The facts of the case, in a narrow compass, is that, the petitioner maintains Savings Bank Account at Badharghat Branch of ICICI Bank which was auto-debit account for Car Loan. The car loan was closed on 10.02.2022 and thereafter the Bank issued a No-Dues Statement on 03.05.2022 in favour of the petitioner. The loan statement as on 12.10.2022 records outstanding as NIL. On 07.09.2021 the petitioner availed Gold Loan vide Account No. 216705001633 for Rs. 1,59,225/- against specific pledge of gold ornaments. The security for that facility is the pledged gold, not the savings account. The Bank nevertheless treated the gold loan as "seized" because of COVID-period car-defaults that stood wiped out when the car loan was closed. Auction of the pledged gold was restrained by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, first on 17.11.2022 and then absolutely on 02.09.2024, till disposal of T.S. No. 149 of 2022. That suit is pending. On 09.02.2024 the Government Treasury credited Rs. 72,600/- to the petitioner's savings account against governmental work. Self cheque No. 003843 for that sum was returned on 03.04.2024 with the reason "Amount Lien". It is further case of the petitioner that no instrument of lien, no amount, and no identity of the account against which the lien is claimed, was disclosed. A later cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- dated 12.01.2025 was likewise stopped orally. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted his representations dated 03.04.2024, 24.02.2025 and 25.10.2025 which produced no speaking order. On 09.04.2026 the learned Civil Court rejected an application for de-freeze, not by upholding any lien, but by holding that the savings account is outside the subject-matter of T.S. 149 of 2022. Being aggrieved, this writ petition.
4. The contention of Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a closed car loan cannot be used as a peg for an everlasting lien on the savings account of the petitioner and that a gold loan has already been secured by pledged ornaments and already injuncted by the learned Civil Court which cannot additionally lock government receipts. He has further submitted that a scheduled bank cannot freeze an account by a slip by violating the Constitution, Section 171 of the Contract Act, and the Reserve Bank's customer-service instructions. Learned senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/3 which is a clearance certificate of the car loan issued by the bank and has submitted that another loan was taken by the petitioner by pledging gold and hence there is no question of lien. He has further submitted that in the proceeding before the Civil Court the bank did not submit their written statement, so injunction was granted restraining the bank from disposing the pledged gold.
5. This court has meticulously perused the record in hand. Needless to say, the petitioner being plaintiff has filed a suit being TS 149 of 2022 before the Civil Judge, senior Division No.2, Agartala, West Tripura for a direction to the defendants-bank to de-freeze the savings bank account of the petitioner lying therein. The petitioner also filed an application being against willfull violation of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in CM(Inj) 99 of 2022. From the order dated 09.04.2026, it is seen that the Civil Court has rejected the application so filed by the petitioner for defreezing the bank account of the petitioner. The order dated 09.04.2026 runs as follows:
“Perused the aforesaid application including the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in CM (Inj) 99 of 2022.
On perusal of the aforesaid order, I find that there is no mention about the said saving account number of the plaintiff in the said order. Further, there is also no whisper in the injunction petition as well as in the plaint of the plaintiff about the said saving account number of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has basically filed the present suit for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from selling the gold ornaments mortgaged with the defendant Bank by way of auction and this Court vide said order dated 02.09.2024 restrained the defendants from proceeding further with the auction sale of the Gold ornaments pledged/mortgaged by the plaintiff with the defendants while obtaining gold loan. Hence, I find no force on the submission of learned counsel of the plaintiff that the defendants have violated the said order of the Court. There is no connection between the said order and freezing, if any, of the aforesaid saving account number of the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any scope to entertain the present application filed by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.”
From the order dated 09.04.2026, it is also seen that the petitioner being plaintiff also filed another application for expeditious hearing and early disposal of the suit. While dealing with the said issue, the Civil Judge has opined that it is clear that this suit has been dragging due to the latches on the part of the plaintiff. Had the plaintiff filed his original documents earlier and prayed for closing the chapter of filing documents by the defendants, issues could have been framed earlier. There is no requirement of filing this type of application. What is required is to remain present before the Court on the date fixed and make their submissions.
6. From the order itself, it is clear that the petitioner was not diligent in dealing with his grievances before the civil court. Further, High Courts exercise judicial restraint and generally refuse to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 if equally efficacious civil or statutory remedy is available, or when the dispute involves private rights or civil court orders that require a standard civil suit. Since the petitioner has approached the Civil Court for securing his private rights, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies before the Civil Court in the pending suit by filing interlocutory application, if advised. If already filed and dismissed, the petitioner can always file appropriate application under CPC before appropriate Court, if so advised.
7. In the light of above discussion the instant writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
