The jurisdiction of a civil court is barred in matters pertaining to enforcement measures taken by a secured creditor under relevant financial legislation. All grievances regarding such measures must be exclusively adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, rendering civil suits regarding these properties outside the court's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The present civil first appeal has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Civil Suit No.55/2025, whereby, the plaint filed by the appellant for partition, declaration and permanent injunction has been rejected on an application filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, on the ground that it was barred by the law as per provisions of Sections 34, 35, 13(2), 13(4) and 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2002’).

2. The plaintiff-appellant sought the following reliefs in the suit filed by him:-

^^20- ;g fd vuqrks"k fuEu izdkj gS %&

1- fd og fookfnr lEifRr ,lh 4 xk;=h lnu] lokbZ t;flag gkbZos cuhikdZ t;iqj dk foHkktu tfj;s ehVl ,.M ckm.M~l ls djkdj viuk 1@3 fgLlk izkIr dj ys o mldk dCtk izkIr dj ysA

2- fd izfroknh la[;k&1 us lEifRr fLFkr ,-lh 4 xk;=h lnu] lokbZ t;flag gkbZos cuhikdZ t;iqj dk lkE;qDr ca/kd fd;k gS mldks o eqdkcys oknh voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa okbZM ?kksf"kr djkj fn;k tkosA

3- fd izfroknh la[;k&1 dks ctfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk ikcUn Qjek nsa fd izfroknh la[;k&1 uksfVl vUrxZr /kkjk&13¼2½ /kkjk&13¼4½ ljQslh ,DV ds rgr uk rks lEifRr dk dCtk ys] uk lEifRRk dks fuyke djs] uk oknh ds 'kkafr iwoZd mi;ksx miHkksx esa ck/kk Mkys ,oa fLFkfr ;Fkkor j[ksA

4- fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; cgd oknh fo:) izfroknh la[;k&1 mfpr le>rs vrk QjekbZ tkosA^^

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the Plot No.AC-4, Gayatri Sadan, Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur was purchased in the name of Smt. Ratan Kanwar wife of Late Shri Bhanwar Singh on 30.06.1959 out of Hindu Undivided Family Funds. Therefore, the property in question is Joint Hindu Undivided Family property. It has also been averred in the plaint that on 01.10.1979, an oral partition was made which was reduced into writing on 24.11.1979 and the property was partitioned amongst Smt. Ratan Kanwar, Yogendra Singh, Devendra Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Bhawani Singh. It has further been averred in the plaint that this family settlement was acted upon and was relied upon by the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Department to exempt the plot from Land and Building tax, acknowledging its partition amongst the five members of HUF, an order dated 28.07.1984 was passed in this regard. Furthermore, plaintiff-appellant’s mother Smt. Ratan Kanwar borrowed a loan from respondent No.1 and thereupon, respondents No.2 and 3 stood as co-borrowers, by creating an equitable mortgage and deposited the title documents of the property in question, which are in the name of plaintiff-appellant’s mother Smt. Ratan Kanwar. Smt. Ratan Kanwar has died on 29.11.2024. When installments of loan were not paid, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued by respondent No.1. At this stage, the plaintiff- appellant filed the Civil Suit No.55/2025 and made a prayer for partition of the property in question by way of metes and bounds, and also to declare the equitable mortgage of property in question created by plaintiff-appellant’s mother in favour of respondent No.1-Bank, as null and void qua the share of plaintiff-appellant and further to restrain the respondent No.