Mr. A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral) - The order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for rejecting the plaint is under challenge.

2. The prime question, requires adjudication by this Court is, “whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit for the action taken or to be taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘the SRFAESI Act’) as well as the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is barred and consequently, the plaint could be rejected on that account?”

3. The factual background of the case is that respondent No.5-Satnam Agri Products was a private limited company having its directors namely Harjit Singh, Kamaljit Kaur, Joginder Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh. They took various financial assistance of Term Loans and Working Capital Finance from the petitioner along with M/s Indian Overseas Bank and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), in which several properties were mortgaged. Joginder Kaur, one of the directors, also made an equitable mortgage of the land measuring 6 Kanals 4 Marlas on behalf of M/s Nirmal Cold Store. On account of non-payment of the loan amount of Rs.42,82,20,640/- by Satnam Agri Products Ltd., an Original Application No.413 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘the RDDBFI Act’) and all the properties, which were secured assets of the petitioner, were proceeded against, including the property of the firm M/s Nirmal Cold Store, which was in the shape of equitable mortgage. M/s Satnam Agri Products Ltd., Shri Mandip Singh son of Nirmal Singh, as Managing Director, Smt. Kamljit Kaur wife of Mandip Singh and M/s Nirmal Cold Store through its partner Mandip Singh, challenged the said proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh in SA No. 180 of 2011, wherein they tried to get a stay from the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the initiation of the proceedings under the SRFAESI Act. The said SA was listed on 28.03.2011, but no stay was granted. The recovery proceedings are still pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. Having failed to get any stay, an application was filed under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act. A civil suit was also filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 before the Civil Court claiming herself as well as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 to be owner of the land to the extent of ¼th share and the mortgage created by Joginder Kaur in favour of the petitioner is illegal, capricious, unlawful and without any authority and for seeking injunction. The present order has arisen out of the application filed by the petitioner-bank under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the said suit.

4. The plea of the petitioner is that since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunction or decide the rights of the parties, therefore, plaint was liable to be rejected. It was also contended that the respondents do not deny about the loan having been taken by Satnam Agri Products Ltd. They also do not deny, as to if respondent No.5 was not the borrower. The only grievance of the respondents is that since Hardeep Kaur-respondent No.1 is the wife of Raghbir Singh, one of the partners of the firm M/s Nirmal Cold Store, therefore, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 15.04.1971, she along with defendant Nos. 6 and 7 (sons of Raghbir Singh) are the owners to the extent of ¼ share of the said land, including the Cold Store, constructed over there and the said property is not liable to be sold for recovery of the debt amount, as Joginder Kaur could not transfer the property of other co-sharers without their consent, therefore, the said property could not be equitably mortgaged. As such, the liability created over the property qua her share is nonest, inoperative, ineffective, against the principles of natura