AMARA VENKATA SIVA KUMAR Vs. AMARA VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the plaintiff, assails the legality and validity of the docket order dtd. 12/4/2022 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in an unnumbered plaint in C.F.R.No.5448 of 2021, rejecting the plaint on the ground that in the obtaining factual matrix, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provision contained in Sec. 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "SARFAESI Act ").

(2.) The plaintiff has preferred the suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule property by dividing it into two equal shares between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant; allot half share to the plaintiff and deliver possession to him by metes and bounds.

(3.) When the plaint was presented before the trial court, an objection was raised by the office calling upon the plaintiff to explain as to how the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the plaint as the bank has already initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act with regard to the plaint schedule property. Further objection was raised that when the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the 1st defendant, how can the plaintiff seek relief of partition. It was observed in the docket order dtd. 7/1/2022 that certified copy of the sale deed dtd. 26/12/2022 stands in the name of the 1st defendant, it is not showing the names of the family members and there is no recital in it that the family consists of parties to the suit. It was also noticed that the 1st defendant stood as guarantor for a third party and placed the property as surety with a bank, which had already initiated proceedings for taking possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act; in that view of the matter, the plaintiff is liable to explain as to how the civil court has got jurisdiction to entertain the plaint.