1. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC passed by the City Civil Court, Bangalore on 22.8.2011 in O.S.NO.8639/06.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: First defendant is Bank of India. 2nd defendant is the Branch of 1st defendant, Bank of India, which Bank has advanced a loan to M/s U & I System Design Ltd. 3rd defendant has stood as guarantor. Sincc the debtor as well as the 3rd defendant did not repay the amount payable to the Bank, the property of the 3rd defendant was brought for sale invoking the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for short). It was widely published and notified in the newspaper dt.5.4.2006 stating that property of the 3rd respondent measuring 2,83,000 sq.ft. would be sold by fixing the minimum reserve price Rs. 3 crores. Pursuant to the notification issued in the news papers to auction the property of the 3rd respondent in public auction, the appellant participated in the bid by depositing a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as E.M.D. being 10% of the reserve price. He was also a successful bidder in the auction in the sale conducted on 10.5.2006 by the defendants-1 and 2.

4. According to the plaintiff, after auction was over, he learnt that the defendants had no salable interest in respect of the property mentioned in the auction notice and that there was also a serious dispute about the title. In the circumstances, he requested the defendants-1 and 2 to clarify the same by giving copies of the original documents of title to verify whether the 3rd defendant had 2,83,000 sq.ft. in actual possession or 2,57,675 Sq.ft. as contended by him. The defendants-1 and 2, instead of complying with the demands made by the plaintiff, called upon the plaintiff to pay 25% of the bid amount and the request of the petitioner to produce the documents of title was not considered at all. It was also the case of the plaintiff that acquisition proceedings had been initiated by KIADB On 19.12.1998 itself. Therefore, the property of the 3rd defendant could not have been sold in public auction. In the circumstances, the demand was made by the plaintiff to refund E.M.D. amount of Rs.30 lakhs with interest at 12%. Since E.M.D. amount was not refunded to him with interest, a suit came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of E.M.D. with interests.

5. The defendants-1 and 2 filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground that in view of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in the civil court and that the plaintiff has to file an appeal u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act,

6. The Learned Judge, after hearing the learned advocates came to the conclusion that in view of the Judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. SATYVATI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. Accordingly, allowed the application filed by defendants-1 and 2 and rejected the plaint under order 7Rule 11(d) CPC. Aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the present appeal is filed.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court, without properly understanding the provisions of Sections-13, 17 ana 34 of the SARFAESI Act has erroneously rejected the plaint. According to him, Section 17(1) of the Act can be pressed into service by any aggrieved person, if he is challenging an order passed Sub-section (4) of Sec. 13 of the SARFAESI Act and hence prohibition u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act will not come in the way to file a suit for recovery of the E.M.D. Amount deposited by auction purchaser. There is no implied or explicit exclusion to institute a suit. Therefore, he requests the court to examine the matter in the bac