The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for injunction was not connected to the SARFAESI proceedings and did not impede the petitioner's rights under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer in C.R.P.Nos.1980 & 1981 of 2013: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 30.04.2013 passed in I.A.Nos.1322 & 1323 of 2013 in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 respectively, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

C.R.P.No.2011 of 2013: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.)

1. The Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1980 & 1981 of 2013 are directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.Nos.1322 & 1323 of 2013 in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 respectively, thereby granting an exparte interim injunction in the petitions filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.2011 of 2013 has been filed to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

3. In all the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:-

“a) restraining the defendant, their men, officials, servants and workers from in any manner posting any security personnel or servants in the main entrance of the suit property and they preventing the plaintiff and other occupants and tenants of the suit property from being possessed and enjoyed in any manner whatsoever, by a decree of permanent injunction;

b) restraining the defendant, their men, official and the persons claiming through the defendant from in any manner parking the vehicles inside the suit property by a decree of permanent injunction;

c) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit

AND

d) granting such other and further relief as this Honourable Court may deed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. On the date of moving the suit, the Court below granted ad-interim injunction in I.A.Nos. 1322 & 1323 of 2013 in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 and also ordered notice to the petitioner by an order dated 30.04.2013. Aggrieved by the exparte interim injunction granted in both applications, the petitioner preferred the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1980 & 1981 of 2013 respectively. The petitioner filed another revision petition in C.R.P.No.2011 of 2013 to strike down the plaint in O.S.No.1439 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent availed loan from the petitioner bank for construction of commercial complex by mortgaging the subject property. Thereafter, other two companies managed by the respondent availed loan by mortgaging the very same property from the petitioner. In total, the respondent availed loan to the tune of Rs.4.01 crores from the petitioner. On 25.11.1998, the petitioner had taken out a portion of the premises in the subject property for lease by the lease deed dated 25.11.1998. Thereafter the respondent and other companies managed by him defaulted in repaying the loan amount and as such they become non performing assets and the petitioner initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act thereby demanded to repay the total sum of Rs.7,63,73,770.67. Thereafter, the respondent failed to pay the said amount and the petitioner bank had taken symbolic possession in respect of the subject property on 07.01.2004. In fact the petitioner also obtained order from the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore to take physical possession of the subject property under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

5.1. While pending the suit proceedings, the family members of the respondent herein filed partition suits in O.S.No.224 of 2004 and 417 of 2007 and both are pending. Further those suits are nothing