The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act).

V.K. Shali, J.

1. I. A. No. 4003/2010. On 26.03.2010 the present suit came for consideration and notice was directed to be issued to the Defendants for 06.04.2010. So far as the I.A. No. 4003/2010 is concerned, it was an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff for an ex parte ad interim stay against dispossession from the third floor of the suit property bearing No. 484, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi during the pendency of the suit.

2. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, an ex parte ad interim injunction was issued against the Defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff who is allegedly in occupation of the shop at third floor of the property bearing No. 484, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi till the next date of hearing. It was also directed that the Defendant No. 3 shall not obstruct ingress and egress from any passage going on to the third floor of the suit property.

3. The matter was listed yesterday before the Court and arguments were heard on the continuation of the said stay order. The learned Counsel for the Defendant No. 3, namely, the Bank of India with whom the suit property was mortgaged by way of the security raised objection to the continuance of the ex parte ad interim order against the Defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has concealed relevant information from the Court on account of which the aforesaid ex parte ad interim order came to be passed. Accordingly, at his request, I have heard the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff Mr. A.S. Chandhiok and the counsel for the Defendant No. 3 on the continuance of the stay order and the matter is adjourned for today for orders. Before dealing with the rival contentions with regard to continuance or the vacation of the ad interim order passed on 26.03.2010, it would be worthwhile to give brief facts of the case.

4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction against three Defendants, namely, Shri Kamal Kumar Nangia, Shri Samarth Kumar Nangia and Bank of India. It was alleged in the plaint that he entered into an oral rent agreement with the erstwhile owner of the suit property Shri Mukesh Kapoor Kailashwati in respect of the third floor of the property bearing No. 484, Katra Ashrafi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and took possession of the same. It is alleged that the plaintiff started business of garments under the name and style of 'Chhabra Textile Corporation'. The plaintiff contends that he has been doing his business under the said name and style since 2000 and has been making regular payment of sales tax. A photocopy of the assessment order is also placed on record. It is alleged that the plaintiff has invested considerable amount of money in making the premises presentable for running the garment business and is presently running a ladies garments business under the name and style of 'Vicky Creation'. It is alleged that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the suit property from the erstwhile owners on 19.02.2008 and they were also doing the business of garments in the same building and they were jealous of the business being run by the plaintiff and accordingly tried to create hurdles in the use of the premises under the occupation of the plaintiff by stopping his access from the ground floor on to the third floor. It is alleged that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in order to dispossess the plaintiff in a deceitful manner and in connivance with Defendant No. 3 visited the suit premises on 23.03.2010 and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 29.03.2010 failing which they would be compelled to take forcible possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff on inquiry also learnt that the Defendant No. 3 had inserted notices in the newspaper on 25.12.2009 for taking the possession of the suit premises without mentioning his name and hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff against all the t