The revision petitioner/6th Respondent/6th defendant, has filed this civil revision petition as against the order in I.A.No.727 of 2006 in O.S.No.410 of 2004 passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff praying for the relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.727 of 2006, has inter alia observed that the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiffs prayer for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the further proceedings to be initiated by the 6th respondent/Bank till the disposal of the main suit is to be granted and resultantly, has allowed the application without costs.

3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/6th Respondent/6th defendant, submits that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the injunction application in I.A.No.727 of 2006 in O.S.No.410 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court and that the trial Court has failed to take note of the ingredients of Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and that the trial Court should have seen that the civil Courts jurisdiction has been completely taken away by virtue of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and therefore, the trial Court has no power to grant injunction against the secured creditor, the revision petitioner/Bank which invokes the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and further that, the trial Court has committed an error in not dismissing the suit based on the application filed by the revision petitioner/Bank, even though ample opportunity has been given to the first respondent/plaintiff who has failed to file counter and that the trial Court has not only committed an error of law, but also violated the provisions of law and has granted the relief of interim injunction in I.A.No.727 of 2006 and added further that, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has an overriding effect over the present existing laws in force and this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the trial Court in a proper perspective and inasmuch as the suit filed before the trial Court is not maintainable and prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote substantial cause of justice.

4. Expatiating his arguments, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/6th respondent/6th defendant, submits that the true fact is that the first respondent/petitioner/ plaintiffs father namely the second respondent/first defendant in the suit and the third respondent/second defendant, (the brother of the first respondent herein) as partners of Sri Venkateswara Dyeing Company have created a mortgage of deposit of title deeds with the revision petitioner/6th respondent/6th defendant Bank in respect of the loan availed by one Ashok Cartons Company and that with a view to cheat the revision petitioner/6th respondent/6th defendant, the plaintiff, his brother and his father have filed the present suit among themselves with an ulterior motive against law by not impleading the revision

petitioner as a party and that the revision petitioner has full right to initiate action as per Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in regard to taking of possession by issuance of possession notice and to bring the property for auction and to take possession of mortgaged property etc. and therefore, as per Section 32 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a direction is given to the revision petitio