THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29801 of 2011 Dated 09th November, 2011 Between: LIC Housing Finance Limited …Petitioner And Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.S.B.Krishna Mohan Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a prohibition to restrain the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, from adjudicating O.S.No.35 of 2011. The petitioner pleaded that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have availed loan facility from it by creating equitable mortgage of property bearing D.Nos.3-2-1 and 3-10-4/1 of Bommakantivari Street, Ward No.7, Ramnagar, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. That the said respondents have failed to repay the loan leading to the petitioner issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) demanding repayment of the outstanding amount and after the expiry of the notice period, the petitioner approached the Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru and thereupon the Collector has issued proceedings, dated 23.04.2006, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the mortgaged property. At this juncture, respondent No.5 filed the above-mentioned civil suit representing her two minor children for partition and separate possession of their share in the mortgaged property. In I.A.No.84 of 2011 in the said suit, an interim order of status quo was obtained by respondent No.5. Feeling aggrieved by the entertainment of civil suit by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner placed reliance on Section 34 of the Act, which reads as under: “34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction:- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding 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 (51 of 1993).” From the above re-produced provision, it is evident that the bar on exercise of jurisdiction by the civil Court applies where a suit or proceeding is instituted on any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the 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 the Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the 1993 Act’). As noted above, the suit is filed for partition. Even though the subject matter of the suit is under mortgage, a suit for partition cannot be adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, to the extent of entertaining of suit, it cannot be said that the same is without jurisdiction. However, in such a suit no injunction can be granted by the civil Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of the power conferred under the Act or under the 1993 Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order granted by respondent No.1, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in order to question the same. Subject to the liberty given as above, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36914 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th November, 2011 VGB