Rights of the parties can be decided under the provisions of the Act.

1. Therevision petitioners are the plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 6/12 shares to the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs’ case is that they are brother and sister, and the 2nd defendant is the another brother of the plaintiffs and they are all sons and daughter of Siddhaiyan and Nallammal, the first defendant. Though the suit properties stand in the name of the first defendant, the same had been impressed with and treated as the joint family properties of the first plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and their father, Siddhaiyan, the plain tiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the plaintiffs have been treating the suit properties as the joint family properties and in fact, they have also executed a registered mortgage in favour of Salem Fairlands House Building Society for availing house building loan. Siddhaiyan died intestate and therefore, the first plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the surviving coparceners of the suit properties. The 2nd plaintiff and the first defendant, who are daughter and wife of the deceased, Siddhaiyan are also entitled to their respective shares in the suit properties. While so, the 3rd defendant, viz. , M/s.Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited claimed that they are the creditors of the defendants 1 and 2 and they have mortgaged the item (1) of the suit properties and compelled the plaintiffs to vacate from the said item, but, they have not succeeded. In the said circumstances, the plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction against them.

4. Theplaintiffs have also moved an application for grant of injunction against the 3rd defendant in I.A.No.769 of 2002.

5. The 2nd respondent/defendant filed a counter denying the various allegations made by the plaintiffs in their affidavit and stated that he is always prepared to partition the joint family properties and also to settle the real dues to the 3rd defendant.

6. The 3rd respondent/defendant, M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited filed counter, contending that the first respondent was running a business, under the name and style of M/s. Salem Metals and she is the proprietrix of the said concern and she is the owner of the item (1) of the suit properties. The first respondent obtained a loan of Rs.8 lakhs by way of secured overdraw and he has also created a equitable mortgage in favour of the bank in respect of item (1) of the suit properties and the first respondent and her wife have executed a deed of guarantee and they have not paid the mortgage amount and the amounts are outstanding and they have issued a notice to the first respondent and thereafter, with a mala fide intention to defeat the claim of the 3rd respondent and also to prevent the sale of item (1) of the suit properties under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’), collusively filed the suit. It is contended that as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order of injunction in respect of any action taken in respect of the mortga ge to the Bank and prayed for dismissal for the petition.

7. The trial Court is of the view that Section 25 of the Act is a bar to grant an order of injunction against the bank, and dismissed the petition Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the 3rd respondent.

.8. Mrs.P.Bagyalakshmi, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is one for partition and separate possession of their shares, in which they have filed an application for grant of injunction, not to sell their shares in the suit properties and in respect of the nature of reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of