Civil courts retain jurisdiction to cancel documents like Patta despite the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, ensuring due process in property disputes.

Judgment

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.6 (for short ‘the defendant-Bank‘) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur (for shor ’the trial coul’) in Civil Suit No.304/2018, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the lease deed/sale deed No. 8609 dated 14.09.2015 as well as permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant Nos.1 to 5 (for short 'the defendants’). Later on, on the application under Order 1 Rule10 CPC, the defendant-Bank was impleaded as party defendant No.6 in the suit vide order dated 07.02.2019 by the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank further submits that the defendant-Bank filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC before the trial court but the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2021 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant-Bank.

Learned counsel for the defendant-Bank also submits that the defendant No.1-Bharat Singh had given a guarantee for re-payment c›f the loan and interest taken by N/s ND Enterprises and M/s Oasis International and also mortgaged the plot No. A-15, Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur registered sale deed of which was executed on 14.09.2015 with the defendant-Bank. On account of non-payment, the defendant-bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). To avoid the said proceedings, the plaintiff, inconnivance with the defendant No.1 filed the suit. As per Section34 of the SARFAESI Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try itbut the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2021 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant-Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the petitionfiled by the defendant-Bank be allowed, order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on thefollowing judgments:-

(1) The Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Smt. Vimla & Ors. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.282/2024 decided on 10.07.2025:

(2) Nisar Khan & Ors. Vs. Authorised Officer & Anr. in S. B. CivilSecond Appeal No.119/2012 decided on 30.07.2025.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the de.Pendant-Bank and submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit through his Power ofAttorney holder Manish Kumar Sapra. The plaintiff is residing in the USA. He had not mortgaged any document of the plot in question with the defendant-Bank. The defendant No.1, in connivance with the defendant Nos.2 and 3, acquired a forged Patta and executed the sale deed. By way of the suit, the plaintiff wants to cancel the said Patta and only the civil court has jurisdiction to try it. The plaintiff has also initiated proceedingsbefore the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur wherein the Tribunaldirected the defendant- Bank to handover peaceful possession ofthe plot in question to the plaintiff. The Tribunal also found thatwhile sanctioning the loan, proper legal formalities were notcomplied with. The bank officials were involved in it.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff lodged an FIR against defendant No.1-Bharat Singh in which charge-sheet has been filed against him. The plaintiff had not sought any relief against the defendant-Bank. The plaintiff only wants to declare the Patta as null and void. So, the trial cnur