The second defendant-Bank has filed this revision challenging the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur, Salem District, granting the order of status quo in the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiffs, on the ground that the very suit and the Interlocutory Application are not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

.2. The case in brief is as follows:

.The revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit O.S.No.14 of 2007 filed by respondents 1 and 2 for the relief of partition and separate possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction and for costs. The plaintiffs have also filed the present I.A.No.86 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC praying for the grant of ad interim injunction. The Court below ordered status quo by order dated 19.02.2007. Aggrieved over the said order, the second defendant is before this Court by way of revision.

.3. The Plaint averments are that the plaintiffs are daughter and son of the first

.defendant and they are in custody of their mother. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are having equal shares in the A and B schedule properties as members of the Hindu undivided family. The suit properties were purchased by the first defendant as karta of the Hindu undivided family from the income of the ancestral properties belonged to plaintiffs and the first defendant and hence the suit properties are to be considered as properties derived from the ancestral nucleus. The chitta and adangal regarding "B" shedule properties were produced along with the plaint. The first defendant is leading lavish life and having bad company. The first defendant was running a hotel, using the joint family fund. Though the first defendant was capable of repaying the loan, failed to pay the instalments of debts knowing fully well that the second defendant will take action on the basis of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The suit properties are Hindu undivided family properties, the plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to their respective share in the suit properties and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

4. Pending the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No:86 of 2007 to grant ad interim injunction restraining the second defendant-bank not to bring the A Schedule properties for sale by auction. The learned Subordinate Judge, Attur, ordered status quo. Aggrieved of the same, the present CRP has been filed by the second defendant-bank.

.5. It is the case of the revision petitioner/bank that the first defendant, third respondent herein availed a housing loan from the petitioner Bank during April 2004 in a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for construction of the House. To secure the loan he had mortgaged the suit property measuring 2800 sq.,ft.,of land comprised in S.Nos:564/1, 564/2 n patta No.477, Manivizhuthan Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District. The first defendant initially paid some installments regularly, but subsequently defaulted in repayment of the loan. Therefore the petitioner-Bank had initiated action under SARFAESI Act by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act on 17. 2006 granting 60 days time for repayment of the loan. The third respondent failed to repay the loan amount and hence possession notice dated 111. 2006 was issued and symbolic possession was also taken by the Bank. Despite that, the first defendant did not repay the loan amount. Thereafter the property was brought for sale and the auction was scheduled on 21. 2007. While so, the first defendant had set up his wife to file a suit on behalf their minor children namely Sathya and Prabakaran, represented by his wife who are arrayed as first and second respondents herein. The suit has been filed for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property on the ground that the suit property was purchased out of the earnings of ancestral property an