##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10689

1 CR-1190-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

CIVIL REVISION No. 1190 of 2025

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK MR. DINESH PANDEY

Versus

SMT RAMDEVI RAJPOOT AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Mallikarjun Khare - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Saket Agrawal-Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

Shri Sushil Kumar Jha- Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

01.08.2025 passed by the trial court, thereby rejecting the application under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner Bank who is defendant No. 1

before the trial court.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present

petition are that the defendant No. 2 had mortgaged the suit property

in favour of the bank on 24-07-2019 while getting the loan from the

bank. However, the same property was thereafter sold to the plaintiff on

23.03.2023 and thereafter the plaintiff on the strength of sale deed has filed a

suit against the bank and the dependent no. 2 who is the vendor, stating that

the plaintiff be declared title holder of the suit property/house and also that

the defendant No. 1 i.e. the bank should not interfere in the peaceful

possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff is the subsequent

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 09-02-2026

18:32:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10689

2 CR-1190-2025

purchaser after mortgage was created in favour of the Bank.

3. The bank has appeared in the suit and has filed an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that in terms of section 34 of The

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Securities Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act" for short), the suit is barred

by law and therefore the trial court cannot entertain the suit. The said

application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that in the

present case since the plaintiff is not the debtor but is a bona fide purchaser,

therefore her civil rights to property can be declared only by the civil court

and the suit is maintainable.

4. Before this court learned counsel for the petitioner had

vehemently argued that the civil court has entered into domain of the Debts

Recovery Tribunal ("DRT" for short) and the only remedy to the petitioner

would lie before the DRT only under section 17 of SARFAESI Act and the

trial court has not cared to consider the bare language of Section 17 of

SARFAESI Act which states that "any person" including borrower may

approach the D.R.T. and the petitioner being subsequent purchaser after

creation of mortgage in favour of the bank would come within the definition

of any person and therefore the suit is not maintainable and the only option

open for the plaintiff is to approach D.R.T. under Section 17 of SARFAESI

Act.

5. The aforesaid assertion was countered by the learned counsel for

the respondent/plaintiff by asserting that the suit is for declaration of title and

the plaintiff need not approach the D.R.T. under Section 17 of SARFAESI

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 09-02-2026

18:32:36

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10689

3 CR-1190-2025

Act. It is further argued that the civil court is always having jurisdiction for

declaration of civil rights of title in property for which civil court is the only

competent court. It is further argued that the document in question is not a

registered mortgage by deposit of title deeds but only an agreement which

does not fall within the meaning of mortgage because the stamp duty has

been paid as per Article 6 of Indian Stamp Act as applicable in State of

Madhya Pradesh and not as per Article 38 of Stamp Act which relates to

mortgage and in case of Mortgage, the Stamp Duty has to be paid either as

per Conveyance or Bond but in the present case the stamp duty has been paid

as per agreement and the document is not a registered mortgage at all.