1. The present revision has been filed by the Punjab National Bank and two others being aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2018 passed by the learned XI Addl. District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit ie., C.S.No. 5A/2017. The learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the Bank under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the applicant Bank has taken action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Bank has sold the land bearing Municipal No. 4141/1/K MIN-3 Part 06 and bearing No. 4141/1/K MIN-2 Part 07, situated in residential colony of Ujjain known as 'Sethi Nagar'. The loan was obtained by the borrower by submitting original sale deed wherein it was categorically mentioned that it is a freehold land and also a diverted land. Undisputed facts also reveal that the suit property is in Sethi Nagar which is within the Municipal limit of Ujjain. The contention of the Bank is that the entire land is within the Municipal limits of Ujjain and under the Master Plan the question of diversion does not arise. It has been further stated that e-Auction Notice was published on 20.9.2016 and the suit properties were sold on 'As is where is Basis'. It has been further stated that the respondent was under an obligation to verify and get himself satisfied about the property, however, with open eyes he participated in the process of auction and deposited 25% of the purchase price being successful bidder. The sale was confirmed vide letter dated 27.10.2016 and in the letter issued by the Bank it was specifically mentioned that in case the non-applicant does not deposit the balance 75% of the purchase price ie., Rs. 1,20,75,000/- within 15 days, the 25% amount shall be forfeited. Undisputedly, the remaining amount was not deposited within 15 days and on 7.11.2016 a prayer was made by the respondent before this Court, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, for extension of time and 45 days instead of 15 days, was prayed. The undisputed facts also reveals that even after expiry of 45 days the entire amount was not paid and finally the Bank issued a letter informing the applicant that the Bank shall be forfeiting 25% amount deposited by the respondent. The respondents thereafter preferred a civil suit stating that the land which has been sold is not a diverted land and, therefore, he is entitled for refund of the entire amount. An application was preferred by the defendant Bank under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that in case the auction purchaser is aggrieved in the matter, he does have a remedy to prefer an appeal under section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, the trial Court has rejected the application preferred under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. The relevant statutory provisions governing the field ie., section 17 of the Act of 2002 reads as under :

17. Right to appeal.-

(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, 1[may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

3[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section.