This revision raises a very short point for consideration as to maintainability of the suit in view of the bar created under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”).

2. By this revision the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 4.5.2016 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below Exh.20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 449/2016 is challenged, as by the said order, the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's primary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the express bar created under Section 34 of the Act and also for rejection of the plaint on the count that it is not properly valued.

3. Brief facts of the revision are as follows :

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had filed instant suit against the present petitioner contending interalia that they were the Directors of respondent no.3-Company and they had in September, 2009 availed financial assistance in the nature of cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 390.00 lakh from the petitioner herein. Towards the satisfaction and repayment of said cash credit facility, they had executed their personal guarantees in favour of the petitioner-bank. However, subsequent thereto, they resigned from the post of the Directors of the said Company by their resignation letter dated 8.1.2014 and in their place respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been appointed as Directors. The fact of their resignation was communicated to the petitioner-bank by writing various letters from time to time. The said letters were acknowledged by the petitioner-bank. By the said letters, respondent nos. 1 and 2 had also requested the petitioner-bank to release their personal guarantees, but there was absolutely no response from the petitioner-bank.

4. In this fact situation, respondent nos. 1 and 2 were served with notice on 2.3.2016 purporting to be issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding the dues recoverable from respondent no.3. The bank further informed that they will be enforcing the right of recovery against respondent nos. 1 to 3. As per respondent nos. 1 and 2, there were required to be released from the alleged guarantee as per the letters issued by them. However, as the petitioner bank has not taken cognizance of the said letters and was persisting in taking action for recovery of the amount against them, who are no more Directors of respondent no.3 Company and no more the guarantors of the cash credit facility availed by respondent no.3. Hence, it was submitted that as the new Directors like respondent nos. 4 and 5 have already taken the charge of the Company and also given a letter to the petitioner bank undertaking the liability of respondent nos. 1 and 2, according to respondent nos.1 and 2, the notice issued by the petitioner bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was totally illegal and hence, it is necessary to restrain the petitioner bank from enforcing the alleged liability under the guarantee-deeds. Respondents no. 1 and 2, therefore, filed the suit for a decree of declaration that the liability of respondent nos. 1 and 2 as guarantors/sureties for respondent no.3-Company be treated as come to an end and further declaration that they should be discharged from the alleged guarantee dated 23.9.2009. By way of permanent injunction, a relief was sought for restraining the petitioner-bank from taking any coercive action of recovery against them, like issuing any further notice and publication of notice, in newspaper in respect of the alleged transaction.

5. In this suit, on its appearance, petitioner herein filed an application at Exh.20 challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in view of the express bar created under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and requested for framing of preliminary issue under Section of the 9A the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. It was submitted by the petitioner that by the