Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—In the present revision a vexed and pristine question of law with respect to the maintainability of the civil suit for recovery of borrowed sum filed by the creditor bank against the debtor and security vis-a-vis the proceedings initiated by another creditor bank namely Allahabad bank against the same borrower for recovery of borrowed sum by invoking Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) is involved. The present revision is against the judgment and order dated 27th of April, 2010. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the present applicant who is one of the defendants in the suit No. 261 of 2008 has been rejected.

2. Canara Bank instituted suit No. 261 of 2008 against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and also the Allahabad Bank on the allegations that Mata Prasad, father of the defendant No. 1 and husband of defendant No. 2 who had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs on 26th of March, 2003 from the plaintiff bank after executing a housing loan agreement dated 7th of April, 2003 in favour of the plaintiff bank. It was agreed upon that the borrower will repay the amount in 180 equal monthly instalments alongwith interest. The borrower executed a letter evidencing the deposit of title deed dated 5th of April, 2003 alongwith registered sale-deed dated 12th of November, 1974 and the property was mortgaged with the plaintiff bank and the bank has first charge on the said property. The borrower failed to repay the amount. The plaintiff bank came to know through newspaper dated 4th of April, 2008 that the Allahabad bank i.e. defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are going to sell the mortgaged property.

3. In the suit, a decree for recovery of Rs. 6,30,590/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 13.25% per annum with monthly rests against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severely claimed. In addition a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants to sell the property in dispute by way of auction, transfer and alienation as also a preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 4 C.P.C has been claimed.

4. The Allahabad Bank, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C to reject the plaint on the allegations that the suit is barred by Sections 38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act, by Section 39 of C.P.C, Sections 34 and 35 of SARFAESI Act and Section 3 of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act vide application dated 31st of July, 2009. In reply, the plaintiff bank came out with the case that the present suit is for recovery of dues of housing loan granted by it to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it.

5. The trial Court by its order dated 27th of April, 2010 rejected the aforestated application on the ground that the suit is not barred either by Section 34 or 35 of the SARFAESI Act as its valuation is less than Rs. 10 Lakhs. Suits valued more than 10 Lakhs of rupees can be tried by Debt Recovery Tribunal and Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suits valued below Rs. 10 Lakhs.

6. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision under section 115 of C.P.C has been preferred.

7. Heard Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant bank. He submits that in view of provisions as contained in Sections 17, 34 and 35 of SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the cause of action against them as disclosed in the plaint is the notice published in the newspaper (Hindustan). The said notice is a sale notice for the sale of immovable properties mortgaged to the Allahabad Bank, under the SARFAESI Act. Wide language used in Section 17 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of the steps taken by the secured creditor against the borrower who fails to discharge his liability.