HARISH TANDON, J

In spite of service none appears on behalf of the opposite party.

This revisional application is directed against an order dated July 19, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ranaghat, Nadia in Title Suit No. 19 of 2005.

Briefly stated the facts, the petitioner bank granted a cash credit facility of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the opposite party no. 1 being the principal borrower for running business, against a hypothecation of stocks and other collateral securities. The opposite party no. 2 stood as a guarantor. In addition to such hypothecation of stocks the opposite parties executed Demand Promissory Note of Rs. 5,00,000/- and other documents.

The principal borrower failed to repay the interest as well as the principal amount despite several request made by the petitioner bank. The petitioner bank ultimately recalled the said loan and made a demand of the principal amount together with an accrued interest thereupon which was duly crystallized as on the date of filing of Title Suit no. 19 of 2005 to Rs. 5,71,377.23.

During the pendency of the said suit the petitioner bank issued a notice on March 5, 2007 to the opposite parties under section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter termed as SARFAESI Act).

The opposite parties, having received the said notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the petitioner bank, did not take steps for repayments of the demanded amount. After the expiration of the statutory period as contemplated under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner bank took steps under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and took physical possession of the property mentioned in the Schedule B to the plaint.

The opposite parties thereafter filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the said steps of the petitioner bank on the pretext that such physical possession has been taken in gross violation of provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act. The court below allowed the said application and directed the petitioner bank to revert back the physical possession to the opposite parties at once. What really weighs the court below was that there was no compliance of the provision contained in the SARFAESI Act.

Challenging the said order the petitioner bank has filed instant revisional application. Mr. Kamalesh Jha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner bank submits that the court below do not have any jurisdiction to question any steps taken under the SARFAESI Act as an embargo is created under the said Act upon the Civil Court to interfere.

Having considered the submission made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner bank and to scrutinize the same it is necessary to refer the following provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

“13. Enforcement of security interest. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).

(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of n