JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI of Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order and decreetal order dated 03.11.2020 passed in O.A.No.1031 of 2020 in C.S.No.715 of 2019.

The appellants being the defendants in the suit, filed an application to reject the plaint in O.A.No.1031 of 2020 in C.S.No.715 of 2019 on the premise that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in C.S.No.715 of 2019 lacks jurisdiction in lieu of the provisions under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”) read with Section 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “RDDBFI Act).” The said application was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Assailing the order passed on 03.11.2020, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed by the appellants.

2. BRIEF FACTS :

2.1. M/s Oceanic Tropical Fruits Private Limited and M/s Oceanic Edibles International Limited had availed credit facilities from the appellants-Bank and committed default in repayment. For the aforesaid credit facilities, the respondents herein stood as guarantors. The account of the companies become non performing assets, which made the appellants to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, for recovery of a sum of Rs.227,20,59,666.28 as on 19.03.2015 in O.A.No.344 of 2015. Needless to state that the respondents were arrayed as defendants in the abovesaid application and the property mortgaged by them was also included.

2.2. The Original Application in O.A.No.344 of 2015 filed by the appellants before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, was allowed on 14.03.2019 and the same stands as against the respondents till today. One of the reliefs sought for and granted by the Court is a declaration by all the defendants including the respondents of their assets both movable and immovable on oath by way of filing an affidavit. In this connection, we would only remember Section 25 of the RDDBFI Act which facilitates attachment and sale of movable or immovable properties of the defendants, after issuance of the recovery certificate.

2.3. During the pendency of the proceedings mentioned above on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, the respondents approached the appellants and sought for minimum term loan, which was accordingly granted as could be seen from the sanction letter dated 16.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,16,75,000/- towards the housing loan.

2.4. When the aforesaid transaction came to light, the second appellant sent a communication to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, Chennai, asking him to put on hold while keeping the title deeds without releasing and without prior permission in writing even if the respondents close the account by paying the entire amount of the loan. Needless to state that at the time of aforesaid intra communication between the two wings of the appellants the amount was already sanctioned and withdrawn by the respondents, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai in O.A.No.344 of 2015.

2.5. On 01.07.2019, the respondents sent a communication to the first appellant that they were inclined to close their housing loan account sanctioned on 16.03.2017. The account was classified as non performing asset as on 16.11.2019.

2.6. On 20.11.2019 the suit was presented by the respondents, signed on 18.11.2019 seeking the following reliefs.

“i. That an account may be taken of the amount due to the first defendant under mortgage dated 05.04.2017 registered as Doct. No.1009 of 2017, S.R.O. Mylapore, for Principal and interest.

ii. That the Plaintiffs may be at liberty by a day to be fixed by the court to pay the said amount and the costs of the First Defendant of this suit into court, and that thereupon the said First Defendant may be