Point of Law: No civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determined.

JUDGMENT :

In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Punjab National Bank, has put to challenge the order, dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 323/2014. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, had rejected the petition No. 805/2015, filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under :-

“The respondent No. 1, Dr. Bhaben Chandra Baishya, being the plaintiff, instituted a Title Suit No. 323/2014, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and also seeking a declaration that there is no valid and genuine mortgage of the suit property created by respondent No.2 Shri Partha Pratim Das. It is to be mentioned here that the respondent No. 2, Shri Partha Pratim Das (defendant No. 2 in the Title Suit), has availed a term loan from the petitioner Bank (defendant No. 1 in the Title Suit No. 323/2014) after verification of his title in respect of the suit land and property sanctioned a term loan of Rs.14,90,000/-(Rupees Fourteen Lacs and Ninety Thousand only). But, subsequently, the respondent No. 2 had defaulted in payment of the loan to the petitioner Bank and the said loan became non performing asset (NPA). Thereafter, the petitioner Bank had initiated its proceeding under SARFAESI Act by publication of notice through the newspaper. But, the respondent No. 2 had never filed any representation against the said notice. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, Dr. Bhaben Chandra Baishya (plaintiff in the Title Suit), had served a legal notice to the petitioner Bank that he had purchased the suit property from the respondent No. 2 vide registered Sale Deed No. 5644/2012. In its reply, the petitioner Bank submitted that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) purchased the suit property on 18.06.2012 and his right over the suit property is subject to earlier mortgage created in favour of the Bank. The petitioner Bank also stated that the Bank has taken symbolic possession of the suit property on 26.08.2014 and also published the possession notice on 31.08.2014 and as such, the suit comes under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act and in view of the provision of Section 34 of the said Act and under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner Bank has prayed for rejection of the Suit.

The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed written objection and cited that the petitioner Bank and respondent No. 2 have committed fraud and the respondent No. 2 suppressed the material facts regarding the loan and mortgage because the loan account of respondent No. 2 was closed on 21.11.2011, on payment of entire money paid by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and by showing the land to be free from all encumbrances and that the respondent No. 2 has mortgaged the suit property and availed loan from the petitioner Bank on 25.05.2011. The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) also claimed that the petitioner Bank has sanctioned the loan fraudulently without receiving the copy of the Title Deed and that after the purchasing of the land by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff), the petitioner Bank hurriedly took away the Sale Deed from the Office of the Sub-Registrar by swearing false affidavit and that there was conspiracy hatched between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner Bank to deprive him from getting the suit land which he had purchased genuinely. The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) also brought it to the notice of the Court that while sanctioning the loan by the petitioner Bank to the respondent No. 2, the RBI norms have not been followed. Therefore, it was contended to dismiss the petition.

But, the learned Co