AUTHORISE SIGNATORIES DEUTSCHE BANK Vs. SANDIP DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated August 19, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1245 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Defendants.

(2.) The Plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 1245 of 2010 against the Petitioners and the Performa opposite party praying for the relief that the Plaintiff is a lawful tenant in respect of the premises-in-suit under the Defendant No. 1 and is not liable to be evicted without due process of law, that the Plaintiff is entitled to hold the tenancy right over the said premises-in-suit at the exclusive of any claim, demand, right and interest of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, their men and agents, permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and agents from disturbing Plaintiff's peaceful possession over the premises-in-suit and other reliefs. The Petitioners entered appearance in the said suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the said suit is a bar in view of the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth shall be described as SARFAESI Act, 2002). The Plaintiff filed a written objection to the said application. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the said application. Being aggrieved, the Defendants / Petitioners have preferred this application.

(3.) Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained.