BRANCH MANAGER INDIAN BANK BHARANIKAVU Vs. KRISHNAMOORTHY RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. 195/2005 on the file of Munsiff Court, Sasthameottah. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent filed the suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner bank from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or transferring the property to third parlies, admitting that respondent is a borrower from the petitioner bank. Petitioner filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable by virtue of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per order dated 12-4-2006, Munsiff dismissed I.A. 883/05 filed by petitioners challenging the maintainability of the suit and held that suit is maintainable. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and respondent were heard.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners pointed out that respondent had borrowed the amount from petitioner bank and when respondent committed default, the Bank issued notice as provided under subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act and instead of filing objection, respondent rushed to the Court and filed the suit which is barred under Section 34 of the Act. It was also argued that learned Munsiff without properly appreciating the provisions of Section 34 or following the decision of the Apex Court, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 rendered much earlier to the enactment of the Act held that the suit is maintainable and that order is illegal and unsustainable.