1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘Code’ for the purpose of convenience) as against an order dated 26-6-2006 made in I.A.No.1220/2006 in O.S.No.1378/2006 on the file of II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The 3rd respondent in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the Corporation Bank, S.P.Road, Secunderabad represented by its Authorized Officer and Chief Manager.

2. The appellant herein, as petitioner, filed I.A.No.1220/2006 in O.S.No.1378/2006 as specified above under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying for temporary injunction restraining respondent No.3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant-petitioner over the plaint schedule property. Before the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 were marked. The learned Judge after recording some reasons, came to the conclusion that in view of the bar imposed by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘Act’ for the purpose of convenience) the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to the relief of injunction and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred.

3. Contentions of Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy:- Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy, the learned Counsel representing appellant-petitioner-plaintiff would maintain that even if Section 34 of the Act to be taken into consideration, from the language employed in the said provision, it cannot be said that a Civil Suit is absolutely barred. The learned Counsel would contend that the civil suit is perfectly maintainable and may be on the ground that the transaction itself is fraudulent or the recovery proceedings are so absurd, that such proceedings cannot be further proceeded with. The learned Counsel also would submit that there is no effective remedy provided under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for adjudicating on questions of title and hence to say that the suits are not maintainable at all, cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions would contend that specific pleading is there in the plaint that the Bank in question had not verified the documents properly and there was negligence or at least non-diligence on the part of the Bank in verifying the documents and in the light of the same and also in view of the language of Section 9 of the Code, the civil suit is perfectly maintainable. The learned Counsel also would submit that inasmuch as the application was dismissed mainly on the ground of non-maintainability and in view of the fact that the merits and demerits had not been touched by the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, the matter may have to be sent back for the purpose of appreciating the merits and demerits. The learned Counsel also would comment that this Court granted interim order for a limited period and the same is being extended and hence in view of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned order by sending the matter back to the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy with a direction to dispose of the application in accordance with law. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions.

4. Contentions of Smt. Dyumani:- Smt. Dyumani, the learned Counsel representing the 3rd respondent – Corporation Bank had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Act and would comment that in the light of the clear language of Section 34 of the Act, the suit for injunction itself is not maintainable and even otherwise the Counsel would maintain that it is suffice to state at this stage that when the statute clearly prohibits the maintainability o