IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. NO.1114 OF 2005 DATED:15.07.2010 Between: Pedabaliyarasimhuni Srinivas … Appellant And Sri Y. Amarnath … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dt.08.11.2005 made in G.R. No.3829 of 2005 in unnumbered O.S. No. … of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. It appears that the appellant as an employee of Andhra Bank while working at Bobbili had obtained a housing loan. Thereafter, he was transferred to Adoni in Kurnool District. While that being so, the respondent issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) demanding certain amounts due by the appellant. Aggrieved by the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the appellant laid a suit and filed a plaint before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. The said plaint was rejected by order dt.8.11.2005, which reads as under: “This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration (a) that the Act of the defendant in issuing notice under Sec. 13(2) of Act 54 of 2002, dt.23-8-2005 demanding the plaintiff for payment of the amount of Rs.9,16,850/- within 60 days from the date of the notice, is without jurisdiction, illegal, void and arbitrary and is not binding on the plaintiff; (b) for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from taking any further action in pursuance of the notice dt.23.8.2005 against the schedule property. Office of this Court took an objection on 4.10.2005 that how this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and seven days time was given for compliance. Accordingly the counsel for the plaintiff represented that the act of the defendant is without jurisdiction and there is no sort of mortgage and so the bank is not a secured creditor. Further Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are having jurisdiction when any person aggrieved by any measures taken under Sec.13(4) of the Act but not under Sec. 13(2) of the Act 2002. Accordingly, this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On that the matter is called at Bench and heard the counsel for the plaintiff. In supporting to the contention, the learned counsel submitted decisions reported in : 1) 1997 (6) ALT, page 654 2) 1995 (2) ALD, page 696 (D.B.) 3) 2002 (5) ALT, page 6 Supreme Court 4) AIR 1991 Calcutta, page 120 I have carefully perused the above citations and with an utmost respect I can say that the above citations are not applicable to the present case of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff obtained a loan from the Head Office of the Andhra Bank in which the plaintiff also worked for some time for construction of a house at Salur. It is also admitted that subsequently also the plaintiff obtained some more amount towards loan from the same bank and completed the construction of the house. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff was transferred to Kurnool and worked for some time there and applied for leave and at present he is on long leave. As the plaintiff admittedly obtained a loan from Andhra Bank Head Office for construction of house the plaintiff is liable to pay the loan amount. It is also an admitted fact that the house property was mortgaged to the bank authorities for the loan amount. As such the bank authorities are entitled to recover the loan amount from the plaintiff. Being an authorized officer under the Act the defendant is legally entitled to recover the loan from the plaintiff, and accordingly the defendant issued notice under Sec. 13(2) of Act 54/02 on 23.8.2005 demanding the plaintiff to pay the balance of loan amount. But the plaintiff failed to explain satisfactorily how the plaintiff is not liable to pay the loan amount and that how the defendant has no legal sanctity to issue such a notice and also failed to explain how the defendant has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice and also failed to explain how such a notice is illegal, void and arbitrary. The defendant being a lawful authority taking steps to recover the loan amount from the plaintiff as such it is not proper to interfere into lawful duty of the defendant by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any further action in pursuance of the notice dt.23-8-05 against the schedule property. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the plaintiff failed to explain that this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit for grant of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the suit. As this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected and is rejected. Hence, the plaint is rejected.” Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that though there is a prohibition of entertaining any suit by the Civil Court, the plaint filed by the appellant seeking declaration to declare that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act as illegal, void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and for consequential injunction ought not to have been rejected on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. At least, the suit should have been numbered and after issuing the notice to the respondent – defendant, the issue as to whether the respondent authority has jurisdiction to issue such notice ought to have been examined. I am not persuaded to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act even whether the authority who issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has jurisdiction or not also cannot be examined by the Civil Court. Even for this limited purpose also the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant herein. The impugned order therefore does not call for interference in this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 15.07.2010 bnr