IDBI BANK Vs. MINOR SRI HARI AADHARSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises against the Fair and Decretal Order passed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, in I.A. No.534 of 2017 in O.S. No.115 of 2017.

(2.) O.S. No.115 of 2017 has been presented for the following reliefs:

(3.) The Suit is one for Partition and Separate Possession. It is the case of the 6th Defendant/IDBI Bank, Salem Branch that the Defendants 1, 2 and 5 had obtained Loan from the Petitioner/Bank on 15/11/2016. They failed to repay the dues to the Bank and hence, the said Loan was declared as Non-Performing Assets. Notice was issued under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) on 30/12/2016. In spite of Notice sent to the Defendants 1, 2 and 5, they did not repay the amount. Hence, the Petitioner/Bank took possession under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 26/4/2017. It is the further case of the Bank that the Defendants 1, 2 and 5 had filed a Petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, in I.A. No.1131 of 2017 in S.A. No.217 of 2007 to stay further proceedings of the Bank pursuant to the Notice of possession. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had passed a conditional Order. Since the conditional Order was not complied with, the Stay Order was cancelled automatically. According to them, in order to defeat the 6th Defendant from taking possession of the Suit property under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the present Suit for Partition had been filed. It was argued that Sec. 34 of the SARFAESI Act is a bar to the Suit and therefore, a Petition for rejection of Plaint was filed alleging that from the statement made in the Plaint, the Suit is barred.