9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2115 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Applicability of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 - HELD THAT - The trial Court has considered this argument of the appellant and rightly opined that there is no doubt that at the stage of decision of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only plaint averments are required to be taken into account. Thereafter the Court has taken pains to consider the plaint averments. A careful reading of the finding of trial court shows that the said finding is based on the plaint averments itself. As per plaint averments reproduced in the order of Court below it is clear that the property in question as per the plaintiffs is part of khasra number 260 whereas as per bank it is part of khasra number 1039. The trial Court further opined that although plaintiff has brought the suit for khasra number 1039 the said khasra number was shown as khasra number 260 and loan was obtained. Thus the trial Court has taken a decision on the basis of plaint averments itself and was not impressed with any factual defence taken by the bank. The trial Court rejected the plaint in the teeth of Section 34 of the SARFASI Act. The trial court has rightly considered the plaint averments on the anvil of Section 34 of the SARFASI Act. Since jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred the plaint was rightly rejected by applying the principles of nip in the bud - there are no jurisdictional error illegality or perversity in both the orders impugned - the appellant has a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act 2002 - there are no substantial question of law and reason to entertain this second appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. Applicability of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, concerning the jurisdiction of civil courts. 3. Availability of an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC: The appellant challenged the trial court's decision, which rejected the plaint based on Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The appellant argued that the trial court should have only considered the plaint's averments and not the factual defenses of the respondent bank. The appellant claimed ownership of a property situated at a different khasra number (1039) and contended that the bank's actions were related to a property at khasra number 260. The trial court, however, found that the plaint itself indicated the property in question was part of khasra number 260, which was the basis for the bank's loan, thus justifying the rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized that the decision was made solely on the plaint's averments, without delving into the factual defenses of the bank. 2. Applicability of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: The trial court's rejection of the plaint was heavily influenced by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings related to matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. The court determined that since the issue involved the enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act, the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court's decision was consistent with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh vs. Heeralal and others, which was considered by both the trial and appellate courts. 3. Availability of an Alternative Remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: The judgment highlighted that the appellant had an alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides for an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court noted that the appellant could pursue this remedy if he wished to challenge the actions taken by the bank. The availability of this alternative remedy further supported the trial court's decision to reject the plaint based on the jurisdictional bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that there was no error of law or jurisdictional mistake in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The court affirmed that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, and the appellant had the option to seek redress under Section 17 of the same Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to warrant further consideration.
|
