Civil Courts can adjudicate fraud allegations against secured creditors, but not interfere with enforcement proceedings under the SARFAESI Act without genuine grievances.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in A.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, wherein, the Appellate Court has dismissed the injunction petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC , vide order dated 11.08.2021.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(i) The appellant has instituted a suit in O.S.No.595 of 2015 against nine defendants including the contesting respondent, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Erode. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, which is situated at Erode, originally belonged to her paternal grandfather, namely, Appavvo Mudaliar, by way of sale deed dated 15.11.1972. Appavvo Mudaliar died on 26.04.1987 leaving behind the co-sharer, namely, Thangavelu and other legal heirs. The co-sharer, Thangavelu released his share by way of registered release deed dated 10.02.1994 in favour of one A.Thiyagarajan, father of the plaintiff. On 06.10.1994, the plaintiff's father died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 7 as his legal heirs. Thereby, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit property. She came to know that Oriental Bank of Commerce, Erode has taken possession of the suit property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ['SARFAESI Act' in short]. Immediately, she verified the documents and found that the document titled as 'Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds' dated 21.10.2013, has been fabricated without her knowledge as if, she is a signatory of the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds for the purpose of obtaining loan. The first defendant by colluding with the defendants 2 and 3 have created this fabricated deed for the purpose of obtaining loan. The said document is not binding on her. Hence, she has come forward with this suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Bank from taking any action against the plaintiff's share in the suit property.

(ii) The suit was contested by the Bank/second defendant and the other defendants remained ex-parte.

(iii) The Trial Court has dismissed the suit after discussing the merits of the case and also based on the bar prescribed under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

3. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has initiated appeal suit in A.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode, wherein, she has also filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking interim relief of injunction, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

4. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the injunction petition, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was proved by the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the signature and thumb impression found in the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds dated 21.10.2013, Ex.A7, is fabricated and the signature and thumb impression do not belong to the plaintiff. Having proved that the Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds is a fabricated document, the plaintiff is entitled for interim protection as prayed by her. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act is not applicable to the case of the plaintiff, since in this case, there is a forgery established by the plaintiff herein and she is entitled for interim relief of injunction.

6. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the