ORDER :

(B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.)

1. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2017 in IA No. 3798 of 2015 in OS No. 699 of 2015 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under the plaint was returned to be presented, before the appropriate forum.:

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

(a) The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent No. 1/defendant, their men, agents etc., from interfering with physical possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property - a residential flat in Jubilee Hills. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property having purchased the same under the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 20.11.2012 vide registered document bearing No. 4967 of 2012 from its previous and possessor, G. Sudhakar Rao; on 04.09.2015, the plaintiff received notice dated 31.08.2015 bearing Ref. No. SAR/Loan A/c. No. 391030494 addressed by the defendant to Sudhakar Gagadam and his wife Mrs. Kamala Gagadam for taking possession of the suit property; the defendant is very much aware that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff; the plaintiff approached the defendant's office at Basheerbagh and shown all the title documents.

(b) That the contents of the defendant's notice dated 30.08.2015 shows that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 18,89,641/- due from Gagadam Sudhakar and Gagadam Kamala; the defendant has already issued demand notice but there was no compliance of such demand, therefore, the defendant is proposing to take action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') for taking possession of the suit schedule property from the said persons; the threat of the defendant is illegal since all the originals of title deeds and link documents pertaining to the suit property are in possession of the plaintiff; there is no registered mortgage deed or deposit of title deed as evident from the encumbrance certificate in respect of the suit property by G. Sudhakar Rao and his wife; the law is settled that unless and until the defendant has secured the loan amount under either the registered Deed of Deposit of Title Deeds or the registered mortgage deed, the defendant cannot interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff under the guise of initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; legal notice dated 06.09.2015 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to furnish the documents pertaining to loan transaction cautioning the defendant not to resort further illegalities to interfere with the suit property; there is every possibility of the defendant colluding with G. Sudhakar and G. Kamala and may interrupt and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

(c) The application in LA No. 3978 of 2015 was filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, inter alia, stating that G. Sudhakar Rao and G. Kamala approached the defendant in the month of March, 2005 seeking financial assistance for construction; they informed the defendant that they are the owners and possessors of the 852 Sq.yards, situated in Premises No. 8-2-203/82/J/-III/391/C, in Plot No. 391-C-III, Road No. 81, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, under a registered document; G. Sudhakar informed that he is carrying on construction of Anishritha Residency Complex and it is on the verge of completion; they are falling short of funds and requested for loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- to complete the project; on being satisfied with the credibility, the defendant sanctioned and disbursed the financial assistance of Rs. 25,00,000/-; the required loan documents were executed by the said persons as applicant and co-applicant on 18.03.2005; the above referred property was offered as security for availing loan, thereby, creating mortgage on the area specified in