Only Debts Recovery Tribunal can entertain suits concerning recovery of debt.

I.A. No. 1194 of 2005 in O.S. No. 349 of 2005 and I.A. No. 1195 of 2005 in O.S. No. 350 of 2005 have been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C, with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), (hereinafter be mentioned as SRFAESI Act), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Both I. As. have been dismissed by the learned District Munsif of Pollachi. Hence, the revisions have been filed by the defendant in both the suit.

2. The substantial question of law to be decided in both the C.R.Ps. is whether the plaints in O.S. No. 349 of 2005 and O.S. No. 350 of 2005 are liable to be rejected under Order 7Rule 11 of C.P.C., for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision in both the revision petitions.

3. The Point:

3.1. O.S. No. 350 of 2005 (relating to CRP.PD. No. 391 of 2006) has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the notice dated 5.1.2005 of the defendant, viz.Bank of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, represented by its Senior Branch Manager, is void, illegal, ultra vires of the SRFAESI Act and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or encumbering or transferring or inducting any one into the suit properties.

3.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 349 of 2005 (relating to CRP.PD. No. 390 of 2006) has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit properties and the defendant (Bank of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, represented by its Senior Branch Manager) had only symbolic possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs legal and physical possession in any manner and also for declaration that the defendants right if at all only to symbolic possession and also to restrain the Defendant by means of permanent injunction not to tamper with the building and its physical features including all the articles, things set out in B-Schedule property except by due process of law.

3.3. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 350 of 2005, viz., Rayappan is the son-in-law of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 349 of 2005, viz. Manickam @ Sellakumarasamy. The defendant in both the suits are one and the same viz.Bank of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, represented by his Senior Branch Manager.

3.4. The short facts in O.S. No. 350 of 2005 is that the plaintiff is the director of Match Winner Tax

(P) Limited - a private limited company at Tiruppur. The plaintiff has borrowed a loan from the respondent-Bank under various heads to the tune of Rs. 2,95,00,000/-. Since the plaintiff-Rayappan has committed default in paying the loan amount, the defendant-Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act. In respect of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff has created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank by depositing title deeds of the property. Since the plaintiff/borrower has avoided the said notice, the defendant/Bank had taken possession of the property as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act on 21.6.2005. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 350 of 2005 for declaration that the notice issued by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act is void, illegal and ultra vires and also for permanent injunction. The defendant/Bank has also filed I.A. No. 1195 of 2005 under Order 7Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that under Section 34 of the SRFAESI Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I.A. No. 1195 of 2005 has been dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the defendant/Bank has preferred C.R.P.(PD). No. 391 of 2006.

3.5. The defendant has filed I.A. No. 1194 of 2005 in O.S. No. 349 of 2005 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C, on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SRFAESI Act. I.A. No. 1194 of 2005 in O.S. No.