RAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2013 whereby application filed by respondent -defendant no. 1 - Punjab National Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been allowed and it has been held that the suit of the petitioner -plaintiff is not maintainable and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner -plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the respondents or their representatives, agents, servants, attorneys and employees from illegally attaching, auctioning, alienating or creating any charge and interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property and also restraining the respondents from dispossessing him from the suit property. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent -bank put in appearance through counsel and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. The bank has specifically pleaded that the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 3 lacs from the bank and mortgaged his land measuring 5 bighas vide registered mortgage deed no. 16006, however, the loan amount was not being paid by the petitioner and as on 10.03.2013, an amount of Rs. 2,82,024/ - was due against him. Ultimately, the bank started the proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the SARFAESI Act"). The bank has sought to recover the loan in accordance with law by issuing notice dated 4.3.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the suit filed by the petitioner is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, because the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same. The said application was contested and ultimately has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.07.2013. Hence, this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) IN view of above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 05.07.2013.