jpc wp9080-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9080 OF 2011 Mr. Mukund L. Shah and another ... Petitioners Versus M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and another ... Respondents Mr. Parag V. Dube for the petitioner CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 11th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 28th September, 2011 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Pune by which order, the proceedings under Computer Entry No. 2780 of 2011, being not maintainable, was dismissed at the stage of registration. 2. The cause for filing the Suit in question was the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short 'the Securitisation Act'). The said notice has been challenged in the said suit, inter alia, on various grounds urged therein. In view of the jpc wp9080-11.sxw 2 statutory scheme under the Securitisation Act and especially, having regard to Section 17 and 34 of the Securitisation Act, the trial Court, by its order dated 6th August, 2011, upheld the office objections and returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate forum under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner purported to file an appeal. The said appeal, as indicated above, being not maintainable, was dismissed at the stage registration. 3. In my view, considering the Scheme of Securitization Act, the reasons mentioned by both, the trial Court as well as the Appeal Court, cannot be faulted. The Suit, therefore, can be said to have been filed just to protract the recovery of dues against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case Union Bank of India Vs. Sunpac Corporation & others reported in AIR 1986 Bombay 353, the issue before the learned Single Judge was as regards leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, in the said context the difference between presentation of plaint and admission of plant was sought to be made and another judgment of a learned Single jpc wp9080-11.sxw 3 judge of this Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Sagar Pramod Deshmukh and others, reported in 2011 (2) ALL MR 520. The second judgment is as regards the ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the context of the provisions of the Securitization Act. . In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgments (supra) would have no application. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)