Timely applications for plaint rejection are essential; attempting to reject a plaint after evidence closure undermines the judicial process and is considered an abuse of court resources.

JUDGMENT :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner-Bank against the Opposite Parties praying for setting aside an order of rejection to its petition under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the C.P.C., 1908”) passed on dated 23.06.2022 in the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela.

2. The petitioner-Bank in this revision is the defendant no.2 and Opposite Party No.4 is the plaintiff, the Opposite Party No.2 is the defendant no.1 and Opposite Party No.3 in the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela.

3. The C.S. No.91 of 2020 has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 in this revision being the plaintiff against the petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 in this revision arraying them as defendants, praying for several relief(s) against the defendants and that suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 is subjudice/pending in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela.

4. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner (defendant no.2) for filing of the same is that, the defendant no.3 had availed loan from the petitioner-Bank(defendant no.2) and in order to secure such loan, the defendant no.1 mortgaged some properties in the Bank(defendant no.2) including the suit scheduled properties, as guarantor of the said loan of the defendant no.3. Due to non-payment of the loan dues, the defendant no.2-Bank decided to sell the suit scheduled mortgaged properties issuing letters to the defendant nos.1 and 3 stating that, the secured suit scheduled properties shall be released subject to deposit of Rs.3,25,000,000/-(rupees three crores twenty-five lakhs) and thereafter with the knowledge of the Bank(defendant no.2), defendant nos.1 and 3, the plaintiff paid all the outstanding loan dues of the defendant no.3 to the defendant no.2-Bank, to which, defendant no.2-Bank acknowledged. When, with the knowledge, consent and acknowledgement of the defendant no.2-Bank, the plaintiff paid Rs.3,25,000,000/-(rupees three crores twenty-five lakhs) to the defendant no.2-Banl making clear to all the loan outstanding dues against defendant no.3 for releasing the mortgaged suit scheduled properties of the defendant no.1 in her favour, then, at this juncture, the defendant no.2-Bank and defendant no.1 are jointly liable for releasing the suit scheduled properties in favour of the plaintiff. As, the defendant no.2-Bank did not do so, then, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing a suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020 on dated 06.05.2020 against the defendants praying for the reliefs indicated in the plaint.

5. During the pendency of the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020, the defendant no.2-Bank filed a petition on dated 14.03.2022 under Order-7, Rule-11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff on the following grounds, i.e., :-

(a) The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

(b) The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as per Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(c) The Civil Court lacks its jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, because, the matter relates to the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the same can only be tried before the DRT.

(d) The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.91 of 2020.

(e) The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.91 of 2020, is not entetainable in the Civ