1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1989 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1989 OF 2011 *** 1. Petitioner is plaintiff and defendant No.2 society has raised objection to the cognizance taken by Civil Court by relying upon provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has contended that it is only D. R. T. or then Cooperative Court which can look into that grievance. 2. Accordingly, the trial Court fixed the matter for hearing on preliminary issue about jurisdiction. At that stage, petitioner filed an application seeking leave to adduce evidence to show how prima facie his civil rights are getting infringed in the matter. Trial Court has found that evidence irrelevant as only question of law arose for determination as preliminary issue. 3. It is apparent that contention of the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1989 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioner/ plaintiff that he has 1/7th share in the suit property and, therefore, alleged mortgage in favour of Respondent/ bank is not binding on him. Already claim is mentioned in that plaint. At this stage, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish its correctness. Only question is whether in the face of these contentions, the dispute in suit can be looked into either by D.R.T. or by Cooperative Court. 4. As no legal rights of the petitioner are jeopardized by impugned order, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:30/03/2011. ans/1989