1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 23.3.15 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.342/11, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner-Syndicate Bank extended credit facility to M/s. Murlidhar Sitaram. Smt. Manjulata mortgaged her property situated at Nahata Sukhani Mohalla, Bikaner and created security interest in favour of the petitioner Bank. On account of failure of the loanee in repayment of loan, the petitioner Bank, a secured creditor, proceeded to enforce the security interest under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “the SARFAESI Act”). The mortgaged property was taken possession of and put to auction. The respondent-plaintiff being the highest bidder for Rs.22,00,000/-, the auction was knocked down in his favour and he deposited 25% of the sale price amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- with the petitioner Bank. Thereafter, the Bank confirmed the sale and demanded the balance amount a sum of Rs.16,50,000/-. The respondent-plaintiff was required to deposit the balance amount latest by 6.9.07. The amount was not deposited by the respondent-plaintiff alleging defects in the title of the property. Ultimately, on failure of the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the amount, the petitioner Bank proceeded to forfeit the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- deposited by the respondent-plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-plaintiff filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur I, Jaipur, which stood rejected vide order dated 15.9.08. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the respondent plaintiff before the State Consumer Forum was allowed and the petitioner Bank was directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- deposited by him alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of deposit till the repayment thereof. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner Bank preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer Forum. The National Consumer Forum while relying upon its various earlier decisions holding that in absence of arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties, complaint before Consumer Forum is not maintainable, allowed the appeal vide order dated 4.1.10 and while setting the order passed by the State Consumer Forum, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, rejecting the complaint was restored. It is informed that aggrieved thereby, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondent-plaintiff stood rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. After conclusion of the proceedings laid under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as aforesaid, the respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit before the District Judge, Bikaner for recovery of Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith interest, which is being contested by the petitioner Bank by filing a written statement thereto.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner Bank preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of the bar contained in Section 34 of SRFAESI Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. The application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the application stands rejected by the trial court by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the auction of secured assets was conducted by the petitioner-Bank invoking the provisions of Section 13 of SRFAESI Act and since the respondent-plaintiff failed to deposit the balance amount of 75% within the stipulated period in terms of the auction notice, 25% amount deposited by him was forfeited. Learned counsel submitted that Section 17 of SRFAESI Act confers a righ