Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under the SARFAESI Act, absent allegations of fraud or conflicts with compulsory procedures outlined in associated laws.

1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges Order dated 11 August 2022 passed by the District Judge-I, Gadhinglaj setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court by which the Trial Court had rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). The lower Appellate Court has restored the suit and has directed the Trial Court to frame issue about jurisdiction of Civil Court and decide the same.

2. For better understanding of the controversy involved in the present petition, it would be necessary to narrate few facts of the case. Appellant is a Bank, which had extended credit facilities to Respondents No. 3 to 5, who are Defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit. As a security to credit facilities advanced, Defendants No. 1 to 3 offered flats owned by Defendants No.1 and 2. This is how the suit properties came to be mortgaged in favour of the Appellant-Bank. Plaintiffs in the suit - Pooja and Vandana - are wives of Defendants No.2 and 3 respectively, who in turn are the partners of Defendant No.1-Firm. It appears that Plaintiffs consented to the flats being mortgaged with the Appellant Bank.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3-Borrowers did not repay the loan advanced by the Appellant-Bank, which led to initiation of proceedings by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Symbolic possession of secured assets was obtained by Appellant-Bank, which was in the process of auctioning the same. It appears that the Plaintiffs and the borrowers agreed to sell the suit properties in favour of Defendant No. 5-Purchaser and therefore Securitisation Application No.43/2018 was jointly filed by them along with the Purchaser for redemption of security assets by offering to pay the outstanding amount. They offered to deposit amount of Rs. Rs.70,19,675/-. Upon deposit of the said amount, the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Tribunal) passed interlocutory order dated 21 March 2018 directing the Appellant-Bank not to proceed with the auction sale of the suit property till finalisation of the Securitisation Application. The Appellant-Bank was granted opportunity to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,19,675/-. Accordingly, the Appellant withdrew the amount of Rs.70,19,675/- on 5 April 2018.

4. It is Plaintiff’s case that despite they along with borrowers depositing almost the entire amount due, the Appellant- Bank continued with the auction proceedings and issued Sale Certificate dated 12 June 2018 in respect of the suit properties in favour of Defendant No. 5. It appears that the Securitisation Application No.43/2018 was thereafter withdrawn at the instance of the Purchaser.

5. Plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the action of the Appellant- Bank in selling the suit properties to Purchaser despite deposit of substantial amount by them before the Tribunal. They therefore instituted Regular Civil Suit No.132/2018 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadhinglaj challenging the sale notice dated 24 February 2018 as well as the sales proceedings initiated by Appellant-Bank. All the steps taken in pursuance of the sales proceedings were also challenged in the suit. A relief for restoration of possession of the suit property was also sought in the suit. Plaintiffs also claimed damage