( 1. ) THE appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by order passed by District Judge, Jabalpur in C. S. No. 8-A/06 rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code on the ground that civil suit is barred under section 34 of Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2002 ).

( 2. ) THE plaintiffs are the purchaser from borrower Jitendra Kumar Jasnani, they have purchased the house by registered sale deed dated 8-12-2003 for a sum of Rs. 8,27,000/ -. Before filing of the suit the appellants came to know that the first floor portion purchased by them was under mortgage with the Corporation bank. Paper publication revealed that the Bank had taken the action under the act of 2002, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners in possession of house numbers 1267 to 1270 comprised of first floor having an area of 1287 sq. ft. of land situated at Gol Bazar, Wright Town, jabalpur. The Bank filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure code contending that suit is not maintainable because the Act of 2002 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter or proceeding under the Act of 2002, steps have been taken by the Bank under the aforesaid Act.

Remedy of the plaintiff lies before Debt Recovery tribunal under section 17 of the Act of 2002.

( 3. ) THE learned District Judge, Jabalpur has held that in view of provisions of the Act of 2002 the Civil Suit is not maintainable. Objection raised by the bank has been upheld. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant appeal in this Court. ( 4. ) SHRI A. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has submitted that section 34 of the Act of 2002 has to be read with section 17 of recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1993 ). He has also submitted that the application is not barred by virtue of section 37 of the Act of 2002. Provisions of the Act of 2002 are in addition to and not in derogation of the Act of 1993. The borrower had taken the loan below Rs. Ten Lakhs as per section 1 (4), the Act of 1993 is not applicable where debt is less than Rs. Ten Lakhs. He has also submitted that the debt has the same meaning under the

Act of 2002 as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act of 1993, thus the debt has to be the one which is above Rs. Ten Lakhs, thus the civil suit is maintainable. In case any steps are not taken by the Bank under section 13 of the Act of 2002 appeal/application does not lie before the debt Recovery Tribunal, consequently the decision rendered by the Court below be set aside.

( 5. ) SHRI Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent bank has submitted that the Act of 2002 is an independent Act and the pecuniary jurisdiction provided in the Act of 1993 does not govern the steps to be taken by the Bank under the Act of 2002. Section 34 is clearly attracted to bar the civil suit, suit has been rightly dismissed as not maintainable by the Court below. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, 2004 (2) MPLJ (SC) 408 = AIR 2004 SC 2371 and M/s transcore vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2007 SC 712.

( 6. ) THE question arise for consideration whether provisions of the Act of 2002 are regulated by the Act of 1993, in the matter of pecuniary limits of jurisdiction with regard to steps taken against the borrower etc. by the creditor.

( 7. ) IT is necessary to consider the provisions of the Act of 2002. The aim and object of the Act of 2002 reflects that there was absence of legal provision for facilitating securitisation of financial assets of banks and financial institutions. Further the banks and financial instituti