R.S.A. No. 3125 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 3125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 29.9.2010 Ram Pal ... Appellant Versus UCO Bank & Ors. ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. N.L.Sammi, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) C.M. No. 9229-9230- C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the applications, which are supported by affidavits, and which amount to sufficient cause, the delay in filing and re- filing the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. No.9228 – C of 2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. R.S.A. No. 3125 of 2010 Heard. The plaintiff- Ram Pal having lost in the suit and in the first appeal, has come up with the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, dated 2.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, dismissing his suit for the relief of permanent R.S.A. No. 3125 of 2010 (O&M) -2- injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally from the house in dispute bearing No. 1932/2 situated in Sekhewal, abadi Surinder Nagar, near Gandhi Nagar, Ludhiana, forming part of Khasra No.362, Khata No. 787/826-827, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. The defendant-bank took specific plea in the written statement that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this suit in view of the specific bar contained in Section 17 of the Securitization and Re- constructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and that the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Specific issue was framed to that effect by the trial Court which was decided against the plaintiff and that finding was upheld by the First Appellate Court. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the lower Courts and the same could not be challenged in the present appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires modification. Once it was concluded that Civil Court had no jurisdiction, the suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed. Only alternative was to reject the plaint. Accordingly, the judgment and decree is modified to the effect that the plaint of the plaintiff is rejected, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly with the said modification. September 29, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge