BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA Vs. RAGHULE AMUTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dtd. 9/9/2016, passed in IA.No.227 of 2015 in OS.No.8 of 2015, by the Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the 2nd Defendant Bank is the Petitioner and the Plaintiffs are the Respondents. The suit was filed for declaration that the charge created by the Defendant over the suit properties is fraudulent one and is not binding on the Plaintiffs, for permanent injunction and for a preliminary decree for partition. The 2nd Defendant Bank has filed the application, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction. Since the said application was dismissed by the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 2nd Defendant Bank.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the suit is a collusive one to defraud the Bank, with whom the suit properties had been mortgaged and that when the property in question is the subject matter of the proceedings initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and said proceedings are pending, the plaint ought to have been rejected and the impugned order refusing to reject the plaint is erroneous and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed. The learned counsel has relied on 2014 4 LW 559 (M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Dr.K.Priyalatha and others) and 2014 6 CTC 751 (Indian Bank Vs. B.Venkataraman and others) in support of his contentions.