The exhaustion of remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act precluded the plaintiff from seeking relief through a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. (Oral) - I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Patiala in CA/0000042/2016, by which he has upheld and affirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala in (CS/0009938/2013) whereby the suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case as put up by the plaintiff-appellant stands enumerated as under:-

The plaintiff applied for a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Branch at Patiala. It is claimed that out of Rs. 10 lacs only Rs. 9,25,000/- was disbursed to the appellant-plaintiff and remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- were received by the officials of said company. The said financial company has now been taken over by the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. The loan was to be repaid with interest @ 12% per annum in 120 equal monthly installments of Rs. 14,348/- each. It is claimed that the plaintiff-appellant was regularly paying the installments and statement of account was being maintained by him with his bank Punjab National Bank. It is further claimed that the plaintiff-appellant has already repaid more than Rs. 7,70,000/- however, despite receiving the said amount, officials of the previous company, without disclosing and without crediting the said amount, got filed a petition under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which was decided on 05.03.2010 by pronouncing an Award in favour of the company. It is also claimed that signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on the blank printed forms and the agreement was neither properly submitted nor was it attested by Notary Public. The plaintiff-appellant was never informed regarding any arbitration clause. When the plaintiff came to know about the Award passed by the Arbitrator against him, he filed objection under Section 34 of the Act, however, the same was dismissed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Patiala on the ground of delay. The request of plaintiff-appellant made with the officials of the previous company to render the proper and complete account also proved futile. Claim is that the accounts were never properly maintained by the company and the bank.

4. In the background of the aforesaid fact, the plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-bank or its employees or attorneys from effecting recovery by show of force or by attachment or sale or auction of the mortgaged property of plaintiff-appellant.

5. The defendants appeared on receipt of the notice and they contested by filing written statement disclosing that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred as per Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as to "the SARFAESI Act"). It is stated that the plaintiff availed loan of Rs. 10 lacs. The claim that merely loan of Rs. 9,25,000/- was disbursed to the plaintiff was denied. It is further averred that the plaintiff had duly entered into the loan agreement with the creditor, i.e., City Finance Company by appending his signatures after understanding all the terms and conditions. The Award has already been passed by the Arbitrator against the plaintiff and his objection filed under Section 34 of the Act has also been dismissed. It has further been claimed that a notice dated 12.04.2013 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued upon the plaintiff-appellant after the account of plaintiff was declared NPA. The notice was served for payment of Rs. 12,51,746/- which stood outstanding against the plaintiff-appellant on 12.04.2013 along with future interest @ 18 per annum. A stand was taken before the Trial Court that, after the initiation of proceeding under SARFAESI Act agains