IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.No. 1106 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.189/2009 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.353/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT (APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF) --------------------------------------------------- SANILKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.P.D.ZACHARIAH, ADVOCATE, MUNDAKKAL BUILDING, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5) ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA-683 101. 2. RECOVERY OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM NORTH BRANCH, ERNAKULAM-11. 4. M/S. EMTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD., KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.VARGHESE MUNDAKKAL. 5. DR.VARGHESE MUNDAKKAL, KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM-688 583. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1106 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the appellant. He is stated to be an advocate in occupation of the schedule building described in the plaint as a lessee. Admittedly, he was evicted from that building pursuant to the steps taken by the first respondent, a bank, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Plaintiff had challenged the orders under the Act, and also his eviction, from the schedule building invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. His Writ Petition was dismissed. He pursued the challenge by way of a Writ Appeal. That was also dismissed. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the Writ Petition and also the Writ Appeal were dismissed reserving his right to pursue his remedies in appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum. Therefore, he has filed a civil suit for the decree of mandatory injunction for compelling the defendants to open the lock of the gate and shutters in the plaint schedule building, which was previously under his occupation as an advocate office. The learned Munsiff, before whom the plaint was presented, after going through the allegations made and taking note that the plaintiff was evicted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and that an alternate efficacious remedy is provided to vindicate his R.S.A No.1106 OF 2010 - 2 - grievance before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, held that the plaint is liable to be rejected, and accordingly, an order was passed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the plaint. Plaintiff preferred an appeal challenging the order of rejection of the plaint. The lower appellate court, after examining the matter and hearing the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Impeaching the correctness of the order concurrently passed by the two courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 2. After going through the impugned orders passed by the two courts below and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff with reference to the provisions covered by the SARFAESI Act, I find, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the courts below rejecting the plaint as the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a dispute of this nature is excluded by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv