[2025:RJ-JP:10605]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 93/2019 Uco Bank Through Manager, Opposite MBS Hospital, Nayapura, Kota (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Vikas Mittal S/o Shri Umesh Mittal R/o Uma Grah, New Post Office Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj)

Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Umesh Mittal S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand Mittal R/o Uma Grah, New Post Office Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj)

3. Akash Mittal S/o Shri Umesh Mittal R/o Uma Grah, New Post Office Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj)

4. Smt. Smriti Mittal W/o Shri Akash Mittal R/o Uma Grah, New Post Office Road, Kota Junction, Kota (Raj)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay with Mr. Jai Kishan Singh Mr. P.S. Naruka Mr. Rishi Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

06/03/2025

1. The instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner- defendant/Bank aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 08.02.2019 in Civil Suit No.643/2018 by learned Civil Judge, Kota (North), Kota.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant) while placing reliance upon judgments in case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Heeralal and others : (2014) 1 SCC 479 and State Bank of Patiala Vs. Mukesh Jain and Ors.: AIR 2016 SC 5140 submitted that if a bank or financial institution initiated a process to recover debt advance by it then the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Securitisation Act’). He further submitted that even under Section 17 of Securitisation Act, no proceeding can be initiated in any of Civil Court. He further submitted that Section 35 of Securitisation Act oversides other laws and reading with Section 9 of CPC would make it clear that a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain civil suit of any nature. He further referred judgment in case of Sushma Suri and Anr. Vs. Mahamedha Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and Ors. : 2011 (178) DLT 111 and submitted that under Section 17 of Securitisation Act, any person who is aggrieved, can only approach Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) not a Civil Court. He further referred the provision of Section 34 of Securitisation Act and Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and submitted that the suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) is barred by law and is liable to be rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have mortgaged a property in lieu of advance/loan and these loan accounts have become NPA, therefore, the Bank has initiated a recovery process. He further submitted that a recovery certificate was already issued but respondent No.1-plaintiff has challenged the process of recovery before the Civil Court against provision of Section 34 of Securitisation Act. He further submitted that plaintiff-respondent No.1 in connivance with other borrowers and guarantors has executed a fraudulent gift deed and on basis of this fraudulent document respondent No.1 is trying to delay recovery of debt from petitioner-Bank. He further referred the application for credit facility and submitted that this application was filed on 30.05.2016 and guarantee document was executed on 30.05.2016, later with fraudulent intention and without disclosing to the Bank, a registered gift deed was executed by respondent No.2-Umesh Mittal in favour of respondent No.1 (plaintiff). At last, he submitted that a civil suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff was already afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his cause before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and he submitted that the property mentioned in plaint was gifted to plaintiff by his father Umesh Mittal and a registered gift deed was executed on 31.05.2016. He submitted that after 31.05.2016, if any document is executed by any of the bo