ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petitions is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, in I.A.No.1151 of 2017 in O.S.No.415 of 2017, thereby dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint.

2. The petitioner is the third defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff. The first respondent filed suit in O.S.No.415 of 2017 for bare injunction in respect of the suit property. While pending the suit, the petitioner filed petition in I.A.No.1151 of 2017 for rejection of plaint and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try suit in relation to the SARFAESI matters, since there is a statutory bar under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. The amendment made under SARFAESI Act which enables the tenant to file application under Section 17(4A) of SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Whereas in the case on hand, the first respondent filed suit claiming the tenancy right from the second and third respondents herein.

3.1. The suit property which was mortgaged by the borrower through the second and third respondent, being the guarantors for the loan, on memorandum of deposit of title deed registered in the year 2007. When it being so, as per Section 65A(2)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, no lease deed can be executed for more than three years for the property which is under mortgage. In fact, under the SARFAESI proceedings, the District Collector passed order of eviction on 10.04.2018 and the same was challenged by the first respondent in S.A.No.192 of 2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The same was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in RA(SA).No.27 of 2020 and the same was partly allowed by an order dated 19.04.2021. In respect of the eviction is concerned, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the eviction passed by the District Collector.

3.2. In fact, the suit properties were already sold out in the Court auction, in favour of the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner also preferred a Civil Revision Petition as against the partial dismissal of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal before this Court and it is pending in SR stage in C.R.P.SR.No.45717 of 2021. Unfortunately without considering those facts, the Court below dismissed the petition for rejection of plaint on the ground that cause of action arose in the present suit is bundle of fact and on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the plaint cannot be rejected as such, the petition for rejection of plaint is not maintainable and dismissed.

3.3. He further submitted that memorandum of deposit of title deed of the year 2007, whereas the first respondent entered into lease agreement with the second and third respondents in the year 2013, that too for the period of 16 years. While entering into the lease agreement without due diligence viz., without verifying the encumbrance certificate in respect of the property, they entered into the lease agreement. Though the first respondent averred so many allegations in the plaint, the crux of the suit is only in respect of the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by law and it is liable to be rejected.

3.4. In fact, after dismissal of the petition for rejection of plaint, the Court below dismissed the interim injunction petition filed by the first respondent and aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous appeal before the appellate Court and it is pending. Therefore, the pendency of the suit would not serve any purpose and it is nothing but only to prevent the petitioner and the auction purchaser from taking po