Important Point – Civil Court has no right to issue any injunction in pursuance of any action taken under the Act or under provisions of DRT Act.

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th April, 2005 delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.242 of 2004 by the High Court of Delhi, this appeal has been filed by the appellant, whose application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been rejected by the trial Court and being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 9th February, 2004, the aforestated Civil Revision Petition was filed before the High Court, but the said Civil Revision Petition was also rejected by the impugned order and therefore, this appeal has been filed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:

The appellant is a nationalized bank which had lent Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakh) to respondent no.1 by way of a term loan on certain conditions and so as to secure the said debt, respondent no.1 debtor had mortgaged his immovable property forming part of premises bearing no.C-8/298, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. As respondent no.1 committed default in re-payment of the said loan, the appellant initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). When notice under Section 13(2) of the Act had been issued and further proceedings were sought to be initiated by the appellant against respondent no.1, the said proceedings had been challenged by respondent no.1 by filing Civil Suit No.4 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi.

3. In the said suit, the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 34 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, which prohibits a Civil Court from dealing with the matters arising under the provisions of the Act. After considering the averments made in the application as well as the reply given by respondent no.1 and upon hearing the concerned counsel, the said application had been rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 9th February, 2004.

4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition No.242 of 2004 in the High Court of Delhi. The said petition was also rejected by the impugned judgment dated 8th April, 2005 and being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. The reason for which the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC had been rejected by the trial Court was that the suit was maintainable in view of the fact that the subject matter of the suit i.e. the amount which was sought to be recovered by the appellant from respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) was less than Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh) and according to the provisions of Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’), the provisions of the DRT Act would not apply, where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution is less than Rs.10 lakh and therefore, it was not open to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) to entertain the matter as the amount claimed in the suit was less than Rs.10 lakh.

6. In the aforestated circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that as the DRT Act had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed under the provisions of the Act, a civil suit was maintainable and therefore, the application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC had been rejected by the trial Court. The High Court confirmed the said view of the trial Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenging the validity of the impugned judgment, submitted that the view expressed by the High Court confirming rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 is not correct because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under th