The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for suits challenging recovery proceedings, and actions are ex facie barred by limitation when instituted long after knowledge of relevant proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. 

These two appeals arise from the fair and decretal orders dated 06.01.2021 made in I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 in O.S. No.3969 of 2019, by which the learned VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, allowed the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC and consequently rejected the plaint.

2.Since both applications arose from the same suit and the impugned orders rest on substantially similar reasoning, these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the same rank in the suit .

4. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is as follows: According to the plaintiff, the third respondent, Mrs. H. Asiya Bhanu, executed a simple mortgage deed dated 28.03.2008 in respect of the suit schedule property to secure a loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the principal together with interest at 24% per annum within a period of three months. The said mortgage deed was registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar, as Document No.1217 of 2008. Since the third defendant failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff instituted C.S. No.560 of 2008 on 09.06.2008 on the file of this Court for recovery of the mortgage amount.

5.The plaintiff further states that he subsequently came to know that certain criminal cases had been registered against the third defendant by the Central Bureau of Investigation in relation to bank fraud. According to the plaintiff, he also came to know, through an advertisement issued by the first defendant Bank, that the first defendant had treated the very same property as collateral security for the credit facilities availed by the third defendant and had initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.137 of 2003, culminating in the issuance of Recovery Certificate in DRC No.119 of 2008. Though the advertisement stated that the original title deeds relating to the properties were in the custody of the CBI, the plaintiff asserts that the original sale deed pertaining to the suit property, standing in the name of the third defendant, is in his possession. On that basis, the plaintiff alleges that the first defendant Bank and the third defendant had colluded with each other and that the loan amount had been disbursed in a fraudulent manner; the bank’s claim is fraudulent since the original deeds were with the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the officials of the first defendant Bank, in collusion with the third defendant, instituted O.A. No.137 of 2003 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtained orders fraudulently, and that, consequently, the Recovery Certificate issued therein is a nullity.

6.The plaintiff thereafter filed I.A. No.2 of 2009 in DRC.No.119/2009 in O.A. No.137 of 2003 before the Recovery Officer seeking a declaration that the equitable mortgage and the Recovery Certificate were null and void, and also filed an application to reopen O.A. No.137 of 2003. Both applications came to be dismissed on 28.07.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred Appeal No.11 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, an auction was conducted on 27.10.2009, in which the fourth defendant emerged as the successful bidder, and the sale was subsequently confirmed on 03.03.2010. Thereafter, Appeal No.11 of 2009 was dismissed on 09