J U D G M E N T

The appeal suit is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3 of 2017 dated 23.07.2018. The suit was instituted by the appellants in the appeal suit for partition.

2. The respondents 7 and 8 filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.190 of 2017 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C., and the contention of the respondents 7 and 8 in the Interlocutory Applications were that the 4th defendant M/s.Chithrubi Agro Private Limited comprises of two directors, who are Arunkumar and his wife Archana. The said company availed loan facility from Karnataka Bank Limited, R.S.Puram Branch, Coimbatore. The said company has executed loan documents in favour of the bank. The said credit facilities were guaranteed by the guarantors i.e. A.Mohan, M.Umadevi, A.Archana and Arunkumar. The guarantors have executed the guarantee agreement in favour of the Karnataka Bank Limited.

3. It was contended that the suit schedule property was mortgaged and on account of the non-payment of loan amount, the Bank invoked the provisions of the SURFAESI Act and the matter was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. When issues relating to the suit property was the subject matter of the SURFAESI Act and the Debts Recovery Tribunal ceased of the issues, then under Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act, no suit can be entertained by the Civil Court. On account of the express bar under the SURFAESI Act, the respondents 7 and 8 filed an Interlocutory Application, seeking rejection of plaint. The trial Court considered the grounds raised by the respondents 7 and 8 and allowed the Interlocutory Application, against which, the present appeal suit is filed.

4. The main contention of the appellants are that the civil rights are to be decided only by the Civil Courts and therefore, the appellants plaintiffs cannot be denied to adjudicate the civil rights before the Civil Court in the suit instituted. The defendants though can enforce their security interest for realisation of the loan amount by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the same cannot be a bar for the plaintiffs to establish their civil rights in respect of the suit schedule property, which is an ancestral property. Thus, Section

34 of the SURFAESI Act shall not be applicable.

5. The Trial Court considered the grounds raised by the respondents 7 and 8 regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the express bar as contemplated under Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act, allowed the Interlocutory Application.

6. This Court is of an opinion that Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act enumerates “No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter, which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(51 of 1993)”

7. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is the subject matter of the SURFAESI Act, and the Bank filed an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, which is pending for adjudication. This being the admitted fact, this Court is of an opinion that the express bar as contemplated under Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act should be pressed into service and consequently, the decision arrived by the trial Court is in consonance with Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act and with reference to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. When there is an express bar, then no suit can be entertained. When Section 34 of the SURFAESI Act provides an express bar of the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court, then the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit for partition.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

7 and 8 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supre