INDUSIND BANK LTD. Vs. SMT. SUNITA GAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting conundrum in this civil revision is relating to ousting of jurisdiction of civil court in the teeth of section 34 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 ( for short 'the Act') in relation to the reliefs claimed by respondent No.1/ plaintiff .

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent No.1/ plaintiff filed a civil suit No.100-A/11 for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent/ bank filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit being barred by section 34 of the Act. The court below rejected the said application by impugned order dated 23.2.2011.

(3.) Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the bank contended that the plaint averments and the relief clause of the plaint shows that the plaintiff is claiming certain reliefs which are hit by section 34 of the Act. If plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the bank, as mentioned in para-4 of the plaint averments, she could have filed an appeal under section 17 of the Act. It is submitted that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others-(2010)8 SCC 110, which is consistently followed, the expression "any person" in sub section 1 of section 17 is wide enough to include the respondent No.1/plaintiff.