Mr. D. Krishnakumar, J.

The civil revision petition arises against the fair and exorders dated 28.03.2011 passed in I.A.No.739/2010 in O.S.No. 14/2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthram.

2. The revision petitioners being the Central Bank of India, who are the Creditors, are the defendants in the suit. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2010 before the learned Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to declare the sale proceedings of the Bank as null and void. The respondent herein stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the borrower M/s. Marvelous Marketing and she mortgaged her property. Since the borrower has not repaid the loan, the bank issued demand notice dated 23.07.2007 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. Even then, the borrower has not repaid the loan amount of Rs. 2,90,000/-. Therefore, the Bank has taken symbolic possession of the property and issued possession notice dated 28.02.2008. Even after the said possession notice, the borrower has not repaid the loan amount and hence, the bank has issued sale notice which was published in the newspaper on 01.11.2008, by fixing the sale on 09.12.2008.

3. After issuance of the sale notice, the respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.260 of 2008 before the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to declare the loan borrowed by the borrower will not bind the respondent herein and for permanent injunction restraining the bank not to conduct the sale on 09.12.2008 on the ground that there are various alleged procedural irregularities. The bank has filed the written statement denying all the allegations in the plaint and by stating interalia that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. In the said suit, the bank filed a petition in I.A.No.281 of 2009, under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint. The Court below has rejected the plaint on 27.11.2009 on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Against the said order, no appeal has been preferred by the respondent herein and the said order has become final.

4. Pursuant to the said order, the bank has proceeded with the sale proceedings and the sale was conducted and issued sale certificate on 21.01.2009 in favour of one Chella Thangam. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed another suit in O.S.No.14 of 2010 before the Additional District Munsif, Ambasamudram, to declare the sale conducted by the bank and the sale certificate issued by the bank are null and void on the ground that there are various alleged procedural irregularities and it amounts to fraud. In the above suit also, the revision petitioners/bank filed written statement denying all the allegations and by stating interalia that the suit is not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the petitioner bank filed a petition in I.A.No.739 of 2010, under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint. However, the Court below has dismissed the said application on 28.03.2011, by rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that there is a different in the extent of suit property between the sale notice and the sale certificate, which amount to fraud. Against the said order, the bank has filed the present revision petition.

5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application and the maintainability of the suit will be decided at the time of trial and hence, there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the Court below.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on records.

7. The revision petitioners/bank has issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 23.07.2007 and issued possession notice on 28.02.2008 and issued sale notice dated 01.11.2008 by fixing the sale on 09.12.2008. Assailing the said notice, the