Venugopala Gowda, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff calls in question legality of the identical but separate Order/s passed by the Trial Judge rejecting the plaint’s in terms of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the suits are barred by S.34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act). Said orders were upheld by identical but separate Judgment/s and Decree/s passed by the First Appellate Court. This group of second appeals were heard together as the parties are common and the appeals involve common questions of fact and law. For convenience, parties will be referred by their rank in the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff’s case in brief:

The plaintiff, carrying on business in supply of iron ore and other materials at Hospet, made representations and availed different loans. To secure the loans, plaintiff mortgaged the suit property – equipment/machinery etc., in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff committed default in remittance of loan installments. His accounts were declared as ‘non performing assets’ by the defendant, which sent notices through the Authorised Officer, under S