The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant injunction in SARFAESI proceedings as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 09.11.2012 passed in C.M.A.No.11 of 2011, by the learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai and to restore the order dated 28.01.2011 passed in I.A.No.48 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2011, by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A recapitulation and re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

O.S.NO.29 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit house property, which is sought to be brought for sale under SARFAESI proceedings by the Authorities concerned, at the instance of the City Union Bank Ltd. I.A.No.48 of 2011 was filed by the same plaintiffs seeking an injunction so as to prevent the suit property from being brought for sale under the SARFAESI proceedings. According to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, they are having their shares in that property along with the first defendant viz., Rajarathinam, who in fact, mortgaged the property in favour of the City Union Bank Ltd., in connection with a loan availed by him. The lower Court granted an injunction, as against which, the appeal in C.M.A.No.11 of 2011 was filed. Whereupon, the lower Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the lower Court.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiffs would pyramid his arguments by pointing out that the said Rajarathinam -the first defendant fraudulently created an unregistered Will as though the deceased father of the Rajarathinam as well as the revision petitioners, executed a Will bequeathing the entire suit property in favour of him and hence, the trial Court correctly granted an order of injunction. However, the lower Appellate Court simply reversed it. Accordingly, he would pray for the restoration of the order passed by the trial Court in the I.A., granting injunction.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent bank-the Authorised Officer, would put forth and set forth his arguments which would succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act restricts the powers of the civil Court from granting an order of injunction in the matters of this nature. The lower Court erroneously granted the order of injunction but the lower Appellate Court legally and promptly passed the order reversing it, warranting no interference in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in setting aside the order of the lower Court in granting injunction restraining the second respondent from proceedings under the SARFASI Act in respect of the suit property?

The Point:

8. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would cite the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED Versus HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION reported in (2009)8 Supreme Court Cases 646. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus:

"86. The Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot pass a decree. It can issue only recovery certificates. [See Sections 19(2) and 19(22) of the Act.] The power of the Tribunal to grant interim order is attenuated with circumspection. [See Dataware Design Labs (P) Ltd. v. SBI reported in (2005) 127 Comp Cas 176(Ker) at p. 184.] Concededly in the proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal detailed examination, cross-examinations, provisions of the Evidence Act as also application of other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure like interrogatories, discoveries of documents and admission need not be gone into. Taking recourse to such proceedings would be an exception. Entire focus of the proceedings be