SUSHMA SURI Vs. MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for declaration and injunction. Defendant No.2 - Shakuntla Rani Raizada was the owner of property No.E-9, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. Vide sale deed executed on 27.2.2009, she sold the first and second floor of the aforesaid property to defendant No.3 - Smt. Sarita Gupta. In the first week of April, 2009, defendant No.3 who is the proprietor of defendant No.4 - Rashtriya Import Export Inc. approached defendant No.1 - Mahamedha Urban Co-opeative Bank Ltd. which is a cooperative bank, for grant of cheque and draft purchasing limits of Rs.2 crores and mortgaged the first and second floor of property No.E-9, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi, with the bank as collateral security, by deposit of title deeds. She also executed various loan documents in favour of defendant No.1. She, however, failed to pay the dues of the bank and a sum of Rs.1,03,45,000/- is stated to be due from her to the bank as on 30.6.2010.

(2.) IA 17596/2010 has been filed by defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint/dismissal of the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 of SARFEASI Act on the ground that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

(3.) The application has been opposed by the plaintiffs and they have alleged that defendant No.1 in connivance with other defendants is guilty of committing fraud on the plaintiffs. They have claimed that the issue of fraud can be adjudicated only by a civil court and not by Debt Recovery Tribunal.