The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the interpretation of Section 34 of the Act.

Hemant Gupta, J. - The defendant is revision petitioner against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 3.1.2005 whereby the application filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the property in dispute was purchased by plaintiff No. 1 and her husband vide sale deed dated 1.19.1984 from the assets which the husband of the plaintiff got from his ancestral property. After the death of husband of plaintiff No. 1, by virtue of his Will dated 19.10.1989, all rights in the residential property had devolved upon defendant No. 1 as Karta for the benefit of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 as well.

3. The plaintiffs have alleged that there was an oral agreement and in pursuance of the said oral agreement, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration before the Civil Judge, Delhi which was decided on 24.2.1996 wherein it was held that HUF of Shri G. Udayan Dravid-Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the aforesaid residential property along with another property bearing No. B-75, Ambala Mata, Udaipur. It is further alleged that defendants No. 1 and 2 have colluded with each other and without knowledge and consent of plaintiff No. 1 was only having 1/6th share in the property of his father.

4. It is the stand of the bank that the property, the subject-matter of the suit, was mortgaged in favour of the Bank and, therefore, in the event of the default of payment of dues, the Bank has a right to proceed against the security under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act). In terms of Section 34 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Lid v. Union of India, (2004-3)138 P.L.R. 271 (S.C.) : 2004(4) S.C.C. 311 to contend that the validity of the said Act has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. It has been held that only in case of fraud, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to examine the question.

5. As per the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 is the Karta of HUF who has got the said estate by virtue of the Will by the father of the said defendant and husband of plaintiff No. 1. Without going into the question whether the property in the hands of defendant No. 1 is Hindu Undivided family property or not or whether it is exclusive property of the said defendant, I find the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question raised in the present suit in terms of the bar created under Section 34 of the Act. The argument that the question of title cannot be examined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act is not tenable in as much as all objections which are available to a person against the proceedings initiated by the Bank are to be raised before the Tribunal. The allegations levelled are not such which disclose any fraud at the instance of the Bank, it is pointed out by Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate, that in fact the plaintiffs have already invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to reject the plaint is suffering from patent illegality cannot be permitted to stand.

6. Consequently, such order is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The plaint filed by the plaintiffs is rejected in view of the bar contained in Section 34 of the Act with liberty to the plaintiffs to raise all possible objections before the Tribunal in accordance with law.

Petition allowed.