IMPORTANT POINT
Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of matters which do not fall within jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT under Sections 17 and 18 of SARFAESI Act is not ousted or barred under provisions of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 18.10.2022, passed below Exh. 39, in Special Civil Suit (SCS) No. 66/2020, thereby rejecting the application of the applicant-Bank for rejection of the the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”).

4. The bare facts, which are necessary to dispose of the present application, can be summarized as under:—

The non-applicant no. 1 instituted a SCS No. 66/2020 against the non-applicant nos. 2 to 5 for specific performance of contract, possession and in the alternative refund of earnest amount and damages. The said suit is filed by the non-applicant no.1 on the premise that on 16.06.2010, the deceased husband of the non-applicant no. 2 i.e. father of the non-applicant nos. 3 to 5 had executed an agreement to sale of the suit property to the non-applicant no. 1. After his death, the non-applicant nos. 2 to 5 are the successors. Despite the request of the non-applicant no. 1, the non-applicant nos. 2 to 5 failed to execute the sale deed, as per the agreement referred above. Pending the suit, on application of the non-applicant no. 1, the present applicant-Bank came to be added as a party (defendant no. 5) in the said suit along with added prayer Clause no. (BB) for injunction restraining the applicant or his agents from seizing the suit property or disposing of the same.

5. The applicant-Bank appeared in the said suit and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the premise that the suit property was owned by the non-applicant no. 2, a partner of Jai Gurudev Ginning and Pressing Industries, a secured borrower. The non-applicant no. 2 created an equitable mortgage over the said property in favour of the Bank by depositing original title deed with the applicant-Bank against which the loan was granted to the non-applicant no. 2, a secured borrower. Since, the secured borrower could not pay the amount, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”) came to be issued to the borrower. She failed to clear the dues of the applicant-Bank therefore, an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act came to be filed before the learned District Magistrate, Yavatmal. Vide order dated 27.01.2020, the applicant-Bank proceeded further as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit filed by the non-applicant no. 1. The Trial Court rejected the application of the applicant-Bank for rejection of the plaint. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision application came to be filed.

6. Mr. Khati, the learned counsel for the applicant-Bank would submit that the applicant-Bank has already taken action under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act for enforcement of security interest. Therefore, suit in respect of security interest is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. He submitted that the prayer of injunction against the Bank, not to seize the suit property and not to dispose of the same, is unwarranted and expressly barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The only remedy available to the non-applicants for seeking relief against the Bank is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected against the applicant-Bank under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. However, the learned Lower Court rejected the application of the applicant-Bank for rejection of the plaint against the Bank in gross violation of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, he seeks quashing of the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the plaint against the applicant-Bank.

7. Next, Mr. Khati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-Bank submitted that the suit is based on a contrac