JUDGMENT :

K.K. Tated, J.

Heard.

2. Today the matter is kept on board i.e. 04.05.2019 Saturday in Chamber at 1 p.m. at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant who mentioned the matter before this court yesterday 03.05.2019 at 6.45 p.m. in Chamber.

3. By this Appeal from Order, the appellant original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in Notice of Motion No.1488 of 2019 in Short Cause Suit No.1710 of 2018 holding that the appellant is not entitled to any relief in the said Notice of Motion on the ground that the Suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 34 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the said Act').

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the court below erred in coming to the conclusion that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to take any action against the Respondent bank in view of section 34 of the said Act. He submits that appellant original plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No.1710 of 2018 for various reliefs including restraining Respondent bank from acting pursuant to the notice under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the said Act for auction of the properties of the plaintiff i.e. Flat No.22, Parle Nandanvan CHS,6 Ansari Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai 400 056. He further submits that they also claimed declaration from the Trial Court that, invocation of said Act by the Respondent bank, original plaintiff, is an act of fraud. He submits that plaintiff has claimed following reliefs in the Suit filed before the Trial Court:

"A. That it be held and declared by this Hon'ble Court that the invocation of SARFAESI ACT by the Defendants against the Plaintiff is an act of fraud;

B. That it be held and declared by this Hon'ble Court that the instrument, the Loan Agreement dated__________________, is null, void.

C. Or in the alternative, it be declared that the Defendants have committed breach of Contract and are invested of no enforceable rights as against the plaintiff, nay, that it be declared that the Plaintiff owes no money to the Defendant and thus is entitled to a negative declaration that no amount is due and further that the respondent bank is duty bound to disburse the further funds to the plaintiffs in terms of the contract entered between the plaintiff and the defendant which are mutually binding and further a perpetual mandatory and prohibitory injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondent from taking recourse to any legal proceedings, whatsoever as against the plaintiff for the enforcement of the rights what so ever if any, be invested in them so too, in any manner interfering with the estate, right, possession, enjoyment of the Plaintiff of his Properties on which the respondent may claim legal, statutory or equitable right;

D. If this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Defendants have committed breach of contract, then the Defendants be directed to remedy the breach by specific performance;

E. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Plaintiff does not owe any due to the Defendants Bank;

F. The mandatory injunction be granted directing the Bank to forthwith restore the financial assistance promised to the Plaintiff;

G. A perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant nos.1 to 4, from acting in furtherance of the notice for auction of the properties of the Plaintiff Parle Nandanvan CHS, Flat No.22, 6 Ansari Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400056, purportedly under section 13(2) and 13(4), of SARFAESI be granted;

H. That it be declared that declaration of the accounts of the Plaintiff as NPA is void;

I. That it be further declared that the RBIs Guidelines have no force of law and hence null and void being without any authority of law;

J. To declare that the forum contemplated under the RDDBFI Act 1993, the SARFAESI Act 2002, and the insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, have no existence and force in law as the same are in