In view of specific bar u/s 34 of 2002 Act courts suit can not be maintained.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11. 2006 made in I.A.No:784 of 2006 in O.S.No. 227 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in extending the interim stay when the suit and the I.A., are not maintainable in law in view of the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the completion of the agreement period of three years starting from 3. 2006 and ends with 3. 2009. According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement on 3. 2006 with the second respondent herein and took possession of the suit property and invested huge amount for working capital and doing modern rice mill business. It is his case that he also verified the encumbrance and found that there was no encumbrance entries regarding the suit property and the land. The plaintiff alleges that the second respondent in collusion with the revision petitioner/mortgagee makes attempts to get possession of the suit property where the modern rice mill is being run by the plaintiff in a profitable manner under the guise of non payment of the loan amount obtained by the first respondent to the Bank/mortgagee. Therefore along with the plaint, the plaintiff also took out an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing his running of the Modern Rice Mill till the agreement period is over.

3. The revision petitioner/bank resisted the said application stating that the second respondent herein obtained a loan of Rs.20 lakhs by depositing the title deeds. Since the second respondent failed to conduct the CC account properly and pay the interest as per the contract, the account was classified as a Non Performing Asset by the Bank and action was taken under the SARFAESI Act and notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act was served and since 60 days as stipulated in the said notice expired, further action was taken by the Recovery Enforcement Agents of the bank to bring the property for sale and the same is in progress and once the action is initiated invoking the SARFAESI Act, no other court has the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings except the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is also alleged by the Bank that the first respondent and the second respondent colluded together and entered into an unregistered lease agreement, which agreement is not valid in the eye of law since any lease agreement for more than 11 months has to be registered. The plaintiff has not gone through the original title deeds before entering into such lease agreement.

4. The learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam, on hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and perusing the documents granted a limited interim stay and has been extending the stay. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision is filed by the Bank/mortgagee.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the suit itself is not maintainable since the civil Courts jurisdiction is explicitly barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The second respondent is the absolute owner of the suit property mortgaged to the Bank for availing the loan and as such inevitably the Bank has the propriety to enforce the security for realizing the outstanding due. If at all, the respondents have to file reply to the banks notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and there is a further remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the said Act. It is also contended that the very lease agreement based on which the suit has been filed is an unregistered lease agreement for three years that too for a meager advance of Rs.50,000/= which will expose the collusion between the first and second respondents.

6. In this respect it is relevant to extract the relevant portions of the order pas