MIR ALFAZ ALI, J.

1. Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. PC Goswami, learned counsel for die respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M) dismissing the Misc (J) Case No.36/ 2017 arising out of Title Suit No. 17 of 2016 and thereby refusing to grant temporary injunction. The appellant as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 17 of 2016 and also filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking for temporary injunction, which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 36 of 2017. The appellant-petitioner sought for temporary injunction restraining the respondents their servants, agents, employees, workmen, associates from disturbing the plaintiff in his peaceful use and occupation of the suit property.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit as well as the injunction petition was filed challenging certain action taken by the creditor on the ground of commission of fraud. But the learned trial Court dismissed the injunction petition straight away holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter.

4. Learned counsel relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Bhopal Thapa v. Smti Bina Boro & others, reported in (2015) 1 GLR 340 [2015 (1) GLJ 325] submits that the disputed fact of fraud cannot be decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil Court and in the present case, the petitioner has raised question of fraud having been committed by the creditor and the trial Court without applying judicial mind on the facts relating to the fraud alleged in the petition, rejected the petition with the observation that the civil Court has no jurisdiction.

5. The Hon'ble High Court in Bhopal Thapa (supra) holds as under:

"20. Now, the next question arises as to whether such disputed facts on fraud can be decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Can a DRT pass decree holding that there is fraud even if best of the evidence is adduced in support of the specific pleadings of fraud under Order 6, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? Can it pass anything more than issuing a recovery certificate ? All these questions came up for considerations before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, (2009) 8 SCC 646 and it is held that DRT is a Tribunal constituted for a specific purpose and no independent issue can be initiated before it by a debtor. It cannot pass a decree. It can only pass recovery certificates. In the present case there shall be oral and documentary evidence by both sides to prove and disprove respective allegations on fraud going much beyond the books of accounts and banking notes and this would warrant interrogatories as well as examinations and cross-examinations of witnesses. Considering the nature, scope, power and jurisdiction of the DRT as revealed in the discussions of the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd (supra), it does not appear that allegations of the nature mentioned in the plaint under question, can be decided by a DRT. It can be done by the civil Court only."

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for hearing afresh and to decide the question of prima facie case on the basis of the facts and issue involved in the litigation.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd & others, reported in 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 571 as well as in the decision of the United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others, reported in 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 505, that civil Court has no jurisdiction on the matter in view of the expressed provision of sections 34 and 17 of the SURFASI Act and therefore, the learned Court has rightly dismissed the petition for