Ratios:
a. Civil suit is maintainable to challenge the recovery proceedings initiated under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in cases where serious allegations of fraud are made out ex facie.
b. When allegation of fraud is made in the plaint just for the purpose of maintaining the suit and to overcome the ouster of jurisdiction created by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the plaint has to be rejected.
c. A party to litigation cannot be permitted to explain the false statement in his pleadings.

While the first application is filed by the first defendant-Punjab National Bank, the second application is filed by the 10th defendant-auction purchaser, both seeking the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC.

2. I have heard Mr.M.L.Ganesh, learned counsel for the applicant-bank in A.No.5583 of 2009 and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/ 10th defendant and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. In pursuance of Certificates of Recovery issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, in O.A.Nos.137 of 2003, 61 of 2003 and 287 of 2002, 3 banks viz., Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India and State Bank of India, who are defendants 1 to 3 herein, brought certain items of properties, belonging to the borrowers and guarantors. After moving applications to set aside the Certificates of Recovery and the Certificates of sale, the plaintiffs herein have come up with the above suit, praying for the following reliefs:-

.(a) For a declaration that the purported sales held on 27. 2009, 27. 2009 and 27. 2009 in respect of the suit schedule properties covered by the auction notice dated 26. 2009 in respect of A to E schedule mentioned properties are illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently restrain the first defendant acting through the Recovery Officer, Chennai-1 from confirming or registering the Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants 6 to 10;

.(b) For a declaration that the first plaintiff has not created any valid equitable mortgage on 24. 1998 in favour of Punjab National Bank, Mylapore Branch in respect of A schedule property and consequently declare the Recovery Certificate issued in DRC No.119/2008 pursuant to order made in O.A.No.137 of 2003, DRT-1, Chennai as illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law;

.(c) For a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff has not executed on 24. 1998 in respect of B schedule property morefully described in the plaint and consequently declare the Recovery Certificate issued in DRC No.119/2008 pursuant to the order made in O.A.No.137 of 2003, DRT-1, Chennai is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law;

.(d) For a declaration that the 3rd plaintiff has not created any valid mortgage in respect of C schedule property morefully described in the plaint and consequently declare the Recovery Certificate issued in DRC No.119 of 2008 pursuant to the order made in O.A.No.137 of 2003, DRT1, Chennai as illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law;

.(e) For a declaration that the 4th plaintiff has not created any valid mortgage in favour of defendant on 30.4.2001 in respect of D schedule property morefully described in the plaint and consequently declare the Recovery Certificate issued in DRC No.119/2008 pursuant to the order made in O.A.No.137 of 2003, DRT-1, Chennai as illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law;

.(f) For a declaration that the 2nd plaintiff has not created any valid equitable mortgage in favour of the first defendant on 30.4.2001 in respect of E schedule property morefully described in the plaint and consequently declare the Recovery Certificate issued in DRC No.119/2008 pursuant to the order made in O.A.No.137 of 2003, DRT-1, Chennai is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law.

4. The 4th defendant is one Maharaja Timber Traders, represented by its Proprietor V.M.S.Jaffarullah. The 5th defendant-Maharaja Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, of which V.M.S.Jaffarullah was a Director. His wife is the first plaintiff. The second and 4th plaintiffs are the brothers of V.M.S.Jaffarullah and the third plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff. To put it in simple terms, one Mr.V.M.S.Jaffarullah is the Proprietor of the 4th defendant-concern and is a Director of the 5th defendant-company. His wife, 2 brothers and the wife of one of the brothers, have come up with the above suit, against 3 banks viz., Punjab National Ba