G.S. Kulkarni, J.

The point which falls for consideration in this batch of appeals is as to whether the plaints against the appellant/defendant-Axis Bank Limited (for short 'the Bank') are required to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of the bar created by section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, " Securitisation Act").

2. These appeals arise from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge on five Notice of Motions which were filed by the bank in the five Civil Suits in question, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d), seeking rejection of the plaint qua the Bank. By the impugned order, the Notice of Motions are rejected by the learned Single Judge.

3. The contesting respondents in these appeals are the original plaintiffs (referred as "plaintiffs"). The other respondents are the developers M/s.Orbit Corporation Ltd. (for short, "Orbit").

4. Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :-

The plaintiffs in these five suits have a common cause and interest. The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that they desired purchasing of luxurious flats in a project known as 'Orbit Heaven' (for short "the project") which was being developed by Orbit at Nepean Sea Road in Mumbai. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have parted with huge amounts of money as paid to Orbit for purchase of these flats. The amounts are substantial ranging in several crores. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiffs merely have allotment letters issued by Orbit and in two cases a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and although none of the plaintiffs have a registered agreement/document for purchase of the flats, the plaintiffs say that they have valuable rights on the project property. It is not necessary to delve into the details of payment made by the plaintiffs from time to time to Orbit, suffice it to state that the payment of the amounts is not disputed by Orbit.

5. The facts in each of the plaints are quite similar. The plaintiffs' prayers as made in the plaints, are primarily against Orbit namely the plaintiff's interalia seeking specific performance of the alleged agreements entered with them by Orbit for sale of the suit flats.

6. In the year 2009 the bank had granted loan facilities to Orbit aggregating to a principal sum of Rupees 150 Crores. To secure the said lending Orbit by registered deeds of mortgage created security interest in favor of the bank in the said project (land and the building), in which flats were proposed to be sold to the plaintiffs.

7. The case of the bank is that in or around January, 2016, Orbit committed defaults in re-payment of the amounts advanced by the bank. Despite repeated reminders, Orbit failed and neglected to repay the interest and principal amount due under the credit facilities. A notice dated 3 August 2016 was addressed to Orbit, its guarantors and its mortgagors, recalling the credit facilities. Guarantees were also invoked and the guarantors were called upon to pay entire outstanding amounts due under the credit facilities. Despite these efforts, Orbit and its guarantors/ mortgagors failed and neglected to pay the dues. Consequently, the bank resorted to enforce the security interest created over the secured assets which included the project, by issuing a notice dated 19 August 2016 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act to Orbit, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 161,03,92,020.26 as on 12 August 2016 together with interest. The bank also issued public notices dated 10 August 2016 and 13 September 2016 interalia cautioning the public that all charges/claims on the project shall be subject to the rights of the bank as mortgagee. Some claims were received from plaintiffs, however, the bank by its letter dated 4 October 2016 denied the said claims. As there was non-compliance of the not