Point of Law: Rejection of plaint - Grant of interim protection would not preclude Civil Court from entertaining an application for rejection of plaint as it can be entertained at any stage of suit

JUDGMENT :

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, on an application [Exh.16] for rejection of plaint, under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [the Code], whereby the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application preferred by the petitioner/ defendant-bank, is assailed in this revision application.

2. The background facts leading to this revision application can be stated, in brief, as under:-

(a) The respondent/plaintiff deals in the business of rice. In the year 2013, the plaintiff had availed cash credit facility of Rs. 25 lakhs from the defendant. The limit came to be enhanced by Rs. 20 lakhs in the year 2014. Against the said facility, the plaintiff had mortgaged immovable property being Plot No. 2 in land Survey No. 334/B/2 [suit plot]. The suit plot in which security interest was created was valued at Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The plaintiff committed default in payment of the instalments and the interest accrued on the amount advanced by the bank. The defendant/bank issued a notice of sale of the suit plot, in which security interest has been created, by issuing a publication in the newspaper dated 30th August, 2018.

(b) The plaintiff instituted a suit being RCS No. 476 of 2018 with the assertions that the defendant/bank proceeded to invoke the provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Act, 2002] in a highhanded manner and utter disregard to the offer made by the plaintiff to clear the due amount under one time settlement plan. The plaintiff averred that the defendant had not issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, which is a peremptory requirement before initiating measures under section 13(4) of the Act, 2002. The defendant/bank prepared a false record to show that it has obtained possession of the suit plot, which was to be sold by way of auction in terms of notice of sale dated 30th August, 2018.

(c) The defendant/bank preferred an application [Exh.16] for rejection of the plaint as jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the subject matter of the dispute is expressly barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 2002. Since special forums have been constituted to entertain the dispute arising out of measures taken under section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit. Thus, the plaint be rejected.

(d) The plaintiff resisted the application. It was contended that the Trial Court had considered the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court while deciding the application for interim injunction, and restrained the defendant from conducting auction sale of the suit property till decision of the suit. The appeal there against also came to be dismissed. Thus, the defendant cannot again agitate the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit.

(e) The learned Civil Judge, after appraisal of the rival contentions and submissions across the Bar, was persuaded to reject the application for rejection of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the provisions of the statute in question; Act, 2002, have not been complied as the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 and thus the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted. It was further observed that the question as to whether such notice was infact issued by the defendant was a matter for trial and, thus, the application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the defendant/bank has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

3. I have heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant and Mr. Syed, learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the applicant would urge that the learned Civil Judge committe