( 1 ) TWO important questions of law arise for consideration in the present first appeal and on this arguments of not only learned counsel for the appellants and respondents were heard by this Court at length, but besides that learned counsel appearing in other cases involving same question, also addressed the Court in the present appeal as Amicus Curiae and they were heard at length. The questions are-

1) "whether after enactment of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002, ("securitisation Act" for brief), with effect from 17-12-2002 which contains a bar against exercise of Jurtsdiction by civil Courts in Section 34 of the said act, whether the civil suit involving the banks and financial institutions who have taken measures u/s, 13 (4) of the aforesaid act can be filed and whether the Civil Court in civil suits filed u/s. 9 of CPC can entertain such suits for deciding inter se rights between third parties, including borrower of such banks and financial Institutions and also impleading banks and financial institutions in such suit?" "whether the Civil Courts while dealing with such civil suits filed u/s. 9 CPC, can grant any injunction against the banks and financial institutions after they have initiated action u/s. 13 (4) of the Securitisation act, 2002?"

( 2 ) THE factual background giving rise to the present appeal in brief is as under :-

The present appellants Mohan Lal and smt. Prem Bai claimed their right of preemption in respect of suit property and filed a suit for claiming their right of pre-emption on 10-9-1987 in the trial Court with the case set up that one Radha Devi mortgaged the said property in favour of Shri Ram and Dwarka Prasad s/o Shri Ram on 10-9-1981, which was a conditional sale for a period of five years and when the said period of five years expired, the present appellants Mohal Lal and Prem Bai filed the suit for pre-emption, which came to be rejected by the trial Court on 11-1-2001. The plaintiff-appellants Mohan Lal and Prem Bai came up in appeal before this Court namely First appeal No. 127/2001, which is also pending in this Court. In the said appeal, an injunction came to be passed on 18-4-2003 directing both the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the property in question. , however, before the said stay order was granted after two years of filing of the said appeal on 3-8-2002, the aforesaid mortgagee dwarka Prasad sold the suit property to one ghanshyam, who in-turn mortgaged the same to the defendant Bank SBBJ, Jaipur on 2-9-2002 to obtain certain loan. A few days thereafter on 24-9-2005, the present plaintiff-appellants filed another suit in the trial Court, which was a suit for declaration and permanent injunctipn on the basis of pre-emption rights claimed in the aforesaid separate suit, against which the connected appeal is pending in this Court. On 24-1-2006, the defendant-Bank filed application before the trial Court under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC saying that in view of bar of Jurisdiction contained in Section 34 of the securitisation Act, 2002, the present Suit no. 167/2005 was not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing the arguments accepted the said application under Order 7, rule 11, CPC and dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of bar of Section 34 of the Securitisation Act on 30-1-2006, This is the order impugned in the present appeal and has given rise to aforesaid two questions of law. For considering the said questions, it would be important to reproduce certain provisions of relevant statutes. Section 34 to Section 37 of the Securitisation act are reproduced hereunder :-

"34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.- no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority i