JUDGMENT

Verma, J:- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under section 96 of the CPC against the order amounting to a decree dated 21.1.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.160-A/2019 by the 21st Additional District Judge, District Indore whereby two separate applications both under order 7 rule 11 of the CPC filed by defendants 2 & 3/respondents 2 & 3 and defendant No.4/respondent No.4 under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC read with section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter “the Act, 2002”) have been allowed and consequently the plaint has been rejected.

2. The suit giving rise to this appeal has been filed by plaintiff for declaration of his title to the suit property which is a house constructed over plot No.1146 and 1147, Pheonix Town Colony, Village Kellod Hala, Tehsil and District Indore, for declaration that the power of attorneys dated 10.9.2014 allegedly executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 and the sale deed dated 17.6.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on strength of such power of attorney is null and void and not binding upon him, for declaration that the loan obtained by defendant No.2 from defendant No.4 and mortgage of the suit property is not binding upon him, that defendant No.4 does not have any right to disposses him from the suit property or alienate the same in favour of any third person and for declaration that defendant No.4 does not have any right to recover any amount from the suit property.

3. The plaintiff has submitted that by two registered sale deeds both dated 24.3.2013 he had purchased two plots from its previous owner. On 12.8.2013 he entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for raising construction over the plots. An agreement was also executed between them upon payment of Rs.9,00,000/- by plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has eventually taken a sum of Rs.53,64,909/- from plaintiff for construction of the house but has not completed the same reports regarding which were made by plaintiff to various authorities. Plaintiff then got suspicious and made enquiries from the office of Sub Registrar and found out that defendant No.1 has got executed two power of attorneys on 10.9.2014 allegedly executed by him. Plaintiff has neither signed upon them nor has affixed his thumb impressions thereupon. The alleged power of attorneys are forged and fabricated and have been got manufactured by defendant No.1 by impersonation. On their strength defendant No.1 has executed a registered sale deed on 17.6.2015 in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to the suit property.

4. The plaintiff further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid forged documents defendant No.2 has mortgaged the suit property with defendant No.4 Bank and has obtained a loan from it. The said loan transaction is not binding upon him and defendant No.4 is not entitled to recover any loan amount from him or the suit property. Defendants No.2 to 4 are attempting to alienate the suit property regarding which they do not have any right and are also threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff therefrom.

5. Upon service of summons upon them defendants 2 and 3 as well as defendant No.4 filed separate applications under order 7 rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of the same being barred by law i.e. by virtue of provisions of section 34 of the act, 2002 submitting that proceedings under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the act, 2002 had been initiated by defendant No.4 against defendants 2 & 3 and symbolic possession of the suit property has already been taken and proceedings for taking over actual physical possession are pending. In respect of the suit property order has already been passed by the Tehsildar and District Magistrate, Indore under the provisions of the Act, 2002 hence in view of the bar contained in section 34 of the said Act, the present claim is beyond the jurisdiction of the civil Co