2020 (1) TMI 1333 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - suit for partition - main contention of the appellants are that the civil rights are to be decided only by the civil courts and therefore the appellants plaintiffs cannot be denied to adjudicate the civil rights before the civil court in the suit instituted - HELD THAT - This court is of an opinion that section 34 of the SARFAESI Act enumerates No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 - Admittedly the suit schedule property is the subject-matter of the SARFAESI Act and the bank filed an original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal Coimbatore which is pending for adjudication. This being the admitted fact this court is of an opinion that the express bar as contemplated under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act should be pressed into service and consequently the decision arrived by the trial court is in consonance with section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and with reference to section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When there is an express bar then no suit can be entertained. When section 34 of the SARFAESI Act provides an express bar of the jurisdiction of the civil court then the civil court cannot entertain the suit for partition. There is no infirmity in respect of the conclusion arrived by the trial court and accordingly the suit cannot be entertained by the civil court - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of civil court under SARFAESI Act.

Analysis:
The appeal suit concerns a partition dispute filed against a judgment and decree in a civil court. Respondents filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, citing the SARFAESI Act. The suit property was mortgaged for a loan, leading to SARFAESI proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The trial court allowed the rejection of the plaint based on the SARFAESI Act's Section 34, which restricts civil court jurisdiction when matters fall under the tribunal's purview.

The appellants argued that civil rights should be determined by civil courts, emphasizing their right to litigate civil matters despite the SARFAESI proceedings. However, the court noted that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act explicitly bars civil courts from entertaining suits within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal, which highlighted the limitations on civil court jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act.

The court reiterated that the SARFAESI Act's Section 34 precludes civil courts from adjudicating matters within the tribunal's domain. It emphasized that the suit property was subject to SARFAESI proceedings, reinforcing the trial court's decision to reject the plaint. Citing previous case law, the court clarified that civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters falling under the SARFAESI Act, even before specific measures are taken by the tribunal.

Ultimately, the court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming that the civil court cannot entertain the suit due to the SARFAESI Act's jurisdictional restrictions. As a result, the judgment and decree from the original suit were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, concluding the legal proceedings.