RAMSWAROOP SINGH SIKARWAR Vs. MEENA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 23/07/2008 passed in case No. 2-A/2008, by which the Trial Court allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002 (for brevity "the Act of 2002") the suit was not maintainable. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He pleaded that he purchased a plot vide registered sale deed dated 17/12/1981 from Chandan Singh. Thereafter, he had taken permission from the Municipal Corporation to construct the house and constructed an apartment named as 'Sharda Apartment'. On 2/1/2007 employee of defendant No. 3 came to his house and informed him that defendant No. 1 had taken loan and the house was mortgaged, hence, proceedings under the Act of 2002 were initiated and the suit house was put to auction. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant No. 2 executed a sale deed dated 13/2/2004 in favour of defendant No. 1 on the basis of power of attorney of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff did not execute any power of attorney neither he had sold the house in favour of defendant No. 1 and the whole proceedings are null and void.

(2.) The defendant No. 3 in the written statement resisted the claim of the appellant and said that the asset was mortgaged with the Bank on account of taking loan and in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2002 the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) Section 34 of the Act of 2002 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The aforesaid provision is as under:--