CRP(MD).No.2186 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

C.R.P(MD)No.2186 of 2023

Magudeeswaran

: Petitioner / plaintiff

Vs.

M/s. Shrirram Transport Finance Company Limited,

rep. by its Branch Manager,

Having office at No.159,

Amman Towers,

Opposite to Palaniyandavar College,

Palani, Dindigul District.

Respondents / defendants

PRAYER:

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order passed in un-numbered

plain in O.S.SR.No.2207 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

Palani and direct the District Munsif Court, Palani and decide the same on

merits.

For Petitioner

:Mr.B. Azhaesh

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD).No.2186 of 2023

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner /

plaintiff against return order passed in un-numbered plaint in O.S.SR.No.

2207 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani and direct the

District Munsif Court, Palani to decide the same on merits.

2. According to the revision petitioner / plaintiff, he has intend

to file the above suit for permanent injunction and not challenging any

order passed by the respondent Bank under SAERFAESI Act, 2002. He

further submitted that respondent is non-banking financial company and

therefore, the suit against the non-banking financial Bank is very much

maintainable. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the plaint that the

respondent financial Bank has committed fraud and tried to take

possession of petitioner's vehicle in an un-lawful manner just become a

ground suit against the respondent financial Bank. It is submitted that

even assuming the suit against the Bank is not maintainable, the

respondent is non-banking financial company, there is bar under Section 34

of SAERFAESI Act, 2002 is not applicable to the present case. Further

submission is that the trial Court without considering the above facts and

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD).No.2186 of 2023

legal aspects returned the plaint and stating that transaction between the

parties is covered under the SAERFAESI Act and therefore, the suit before

the trial Court is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the present

revision is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

2023(1) SCC (Bank of Rajasthan Limited Vs. VCK Shares and Stock

Broking Services Limited submitted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to

try the suit filed by the petitioner against the financial institution in relation

to proceedings for recovery of debt already initiated by Bank / financial

institution. He further submitted that Notification issued by the Ministry of

Finance, dated 12.02.2021 civil suit cannot be maintained for

Rs.20,00,000/-. Since the alleged borrowed amount Rs.8,00,000/-, the

Civil Suit is very much maintainable. In the above said Judgment cited by

the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it is clearly held as follows:

“39. On a plain reading of the provisions, the

conclusion reached was that Section 17 of the RDB Act bars

the jurisdiction of the civil Court only in respect of

applications filed by the Bank of financial institution. This

provision did not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil court to try

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD).No.2186 of 2023

a suit filed by the borrower. There was also an absence of

provisions in the act for transfer of suits and proceedings

except Section 31, which relates to pending suit proceedings

by a bank or financial institution for recovery or debt.”

4. Therefore, there is no bar to file a suit by borrower and the

Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit by numbering the plaint filed

by the revision petitioner /