The main legal point established in the judgment is that a bank cannot pursue parallel and inconsistent remedies, such as invoking the SARFAESI Act while prosecuting a civil suit, and that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide tenancy disputes.

I heard Mr. M. Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.2232/2008, Mr. M. Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.535/2017, Mr. R. Devaraj, learned counsel for the respondent in CRP.No.2332/2008, Mr. R. Vijaya Kumar for Mr. G. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 to 7 in CRP.No.535/2017, Mr. M. Kannan, learned counsel for the 8th respondent in CRP.No.535/2017 and Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 9 to 12 in CRP.No.535/2017 and perused the entire materials available on record. No representation on behalf of the 4th respondent.

2. Both the C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2322 of 2008 and C.R.P.(PD) (MD).No.535 of 2017, arise out of the same subject matter and hence it is taken up together for joint disposal.

3. The challenge in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD).(MD) No.2332 of 2008 is to the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.83 of 2008 in O.S.No.33 of 2004 dated 20.11.2008. The challenge in the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. (MD).No.535 of 2017 is to the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul in I.A.No.797 of 2014 in O.S.No.593 of 2014 dated 02.12.2016.

4. Now, the only issue that arises to be considered is whether the Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.2332 of 2008 is entitled for the relief sought for and whether the action of the Respondent bank is sustainable in Law. Further the issue to be considered is whether the Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).No.535 of 2017 can get the plaint in O.S.No.797 of 2014 rejected at this stage.

5. It is not in dispute that the Respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD).No.2332 of 2008 had filed the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 on account of two claims namely OCC Loan account facilities and MTL/ Vehicle loan account. The Petitioner had contested the liability and admittedly the civil suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 was pending on the file of the learned Principal District Court, Dindigul. The liability of the Petitioner was yet to be ascertained and crystallized. Even before that the Respondent bank had without withdrawing /abandoning the suit or at least without informing the competent civil Court, straight away invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and issued section 13(2) notice. It is pertinent to note that the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 was not transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to be tried there. When the Respondent bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act challenging the notice under Section 13(2), the Petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11224 of 2005. This Court had granted an order of interim injunction on 13.12.2005 and the same was made absolute on 23.01.2007. On 05.03.2007, this Court had directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of 6 weeks. The Petitioner has also complied the said direction and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further the Petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in C.R.P.(MD).No.935 of 2005. This Court by order dated 17.09.2007 had directed the Petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai in view of the fact that this Court cannot go into question of facts. The Petitioner had filed S.A.No.16 of 2008 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. The Respondent bank even after the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.11224 of 2005, kept actively prosecuting the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004. The Respondent bank had on the one hand pursued the remedy before the Civil Court and simultaneously had also contested the S.A.No.16 of 2008. It is seen from the records that the Respondent bank had not represented in the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 about any process of bringing the suit schedule property for sale. It is natural for a borrower to expect that since the bank was actively pursuing the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2004 and the suit was in the final stages and nearing completion he would be able to redeem his property by depositing the Decreetal amount if