SYNDICATE BANK Vs. ISHRATH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the defendant in O.S. No. 85/2011. Application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I .A. 1/2013 is filed seeking amendment of the memorandum of revision petition in order to incorporate an additional prayer to lay a challenge to the order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the Trial Court by which the Trial Court has answered the preliminary point raised regarding maintainability in the affirmative. As there is delay in seeking amendment to challenge the said order dated 11.04.2011. I.A. No. 2/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) AT the outset, as I find that question raised before this Court is with regard to the bar contained under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') for maintaining the suit for injunction against the petitioner - Bank, challenge made to the order dated 11.04.2011 assumes importance. Therefore, the amendment sought, in my view, deserves to be allowed to enable the petitioner to lay a challenge to the said order passed in the very suit on 11.04.2011. Though this prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, having regard to the fact that question whether the Court below has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit goes to the root of the matter and can be agitated before this Court while considering the challenge laid to the order passed refusing to accede to the request of the defendant to reject the plaint, I am of the considered view that this objection raised by the respondent/plaintiff is not tenable and the same deserves to be overruled. Hence, delay in filing the application for amendment is condoned. Application filed seeking amendment is allowed. Accordingly, petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer.