NAVIN THOMAS Vs. WILSON THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was heard quite for some time today. However, during the submissions we made it known to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Babu Karukapadath that our jurisdiction in this case is inherently impeded on account of the rigor of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act "). This is because what the appellant wants in this proceedings is a stay of the steps that have been initiated by the financial institution, viz. the second respondent herein, invoked by them under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . The essential contention of the appellant, as we can see from the pleadings on record and the submissions made at the Bar, is that the secured assets against which steps have been initiated by the second respondent is, in fact, property which belongs to the appellant and his contention is that the first respondent, who has created such interest in the property has done so by manipulating a document shown to be a sale deed in his favour executed by the appellant.

(2.) We have examined this submission quite in detail. We are certain that the suit filed before the court below by the appellant for cancellation of the sale deed on the strength of which the financial institution, viz. the second respondent created a security interest, would be maintainable. However, our only concern is whether we would be permitted by law or if we would obtain the jurisdiction to order an injunction against the steps taken by the second respondent which was taken by them invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act .

(3.) When we made our mind so clear, learned counsel for the appellant took time to consult his client and to make submissions. Sri Babu Karukapadath thereafter submitted that he is under instructions to withdraw the appeal, however, with liberty to invoke his remedies, as are available to his client before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . We are also of the view that this is the proper course to be adopted by the appellant instead of prosecuting this appeal and inviting an adverse order from us.