JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Admit. This revision application is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. By this revision application, the applicant-Bank (original defendant) has challenged order dated 26/04/2018 passed by the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, whereby an application filed by the applicant-Bank under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint filed by the respondent has been rejected.

4. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction bearing Regular Civil Suit No.379 of 2018, contending that the applicant-Bank had violated mandatory circulars and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), thereby arbitrarily rejecting restructuring and proposal of the loan taken by the respondent from the applicant-Bank and that by doing so the applicant-Bank had fraudulently taken recourse to action under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Securitization Act").

5. The facts leading up to filing of the aforesaid civil suit by the respondent are that on 23/10/2017, the applicant-Bank had issued a notice to the respondent under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, stating that the outstanding loan/credit facility and the liability thereunder came to 1176.92 lakhs along with unapplied interest from 01/10/2017 and 2% penal interest. This notice was issued by the applicant-Bank on the basis that the loan account of the respondent had become a non performing asset (NPA) as defined under section 2(o) of the Securitization Act. The respondent sent a letter dated 21/12/2017 in response to the said notice, inter alia stating that due to the difficult economic condition, as also crunch suffered by the respondent on account of demonetization, it's account had indeed become an NPA as on 30/09/2017. Thereafter, by letter dated 27/12/2017, the respondent sought certain documents from the applicant-Bank in order to make a representation under the provisions of the Securitization Act. One of the documents sought by the respondent was the basis of classification of its account as NPA by the applicant-Bank. It is an admitted position that subsequently the said letter seeking documents was withdrawn by a letter dated 05/01/2018, sent by the respondent.

6. As the respondent failed to comply with the notice sent by the applicant-bank under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, on 05/02/2018, the applicant-Bank took symbolic possession of the mortgaged assets of the respondent. It was specifically stated in the possession notice dated 05/02/2018 that the possession was taken in exercise of powers under section 13(4) of the Securitization Act.

7. Thereafter, on 07/02/2018, the RBI issued a circular granting certain relief to micro small and medium enterprises who had borrowed loans from banks, wherein certain conditions were specified for applicability of such relief. On 20/02/2018 the respondent sent an application to the applicant-bank seeking benefit of the said RBI circular and consequent restructuring of the loan. On 28/02/2018 the applicant-Bank sent a reply giving its own version and interpretation of the RBI circular, stating that the same was not applicable to the case of the respondent. At this stage, on 26/03/2018, the respondent filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and injunction against the applicant-Bank, claiming that the action sought to be undertaken by the applicant-Bank under the provisions of the Securitization Act was sustainable. The prayers made in the suit read as follows :-

"PRAYER :- It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :

(a) Declare that the defendant has violated mandatory circular/guideline dated 07/02/2018 issued by the Reserve Bank of India;

(b) Declare that the defendant has arbitrarily rejected restructuring propo