BANK OF INDIA Vs. N NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 10.11.2006 made in I.A.No:784 of 2006 in O.S.No. 227 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam in extending the interim stay when the suit and the I.A., are not maintainable in law in view of the bar under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(2.) THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the completion of the agreement period of three years starting from 10.3.2006 and ends with 10.3.2009. According to the plaintiff he entered into an agreement on 10.3.2006 with the second respondent herein and took possession of the suit property and invested huge amount for working capital and doing modern rice mill business. It is his case that he also verified the encumbrance and found that there was no encumbrance entries regarding the suit property and the land. THE plaintiff alleges that the second respondent in collusion with the revision petitioner/mortgagee makes attempts to get possession of the suit property where the modern rice mill is being run by the plaintiff in a profitable manner under the guise of non payment of the loan amount obtained by the first respondent to the Bank/mortgagee. THErefore along with the plaint, the plaintiff also took out an application for temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing his running of the Modern Rice Mill till the agreement period is over.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the suit itself is not maintainable since the civil Court's jurisdiction is explicitly barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The second respondent is the absolute owner of the suit property mortgaged to the Bank for availing the loan and as such inevitably the Bank has the propriety to enforce the security for realizing the outstanding due. If at all, the respondents have to file reply to the bank's notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and there is a further remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the said Act. It is also contended that the very lease agreement based on which the suit has been filed is an unregistered lease agreement for three years that too for a meager advance of Rs.50,000/= which will expose the collusion between the first and second respondents.