1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.64 of 2006 1. Kamalkishor Surajmal Sharma, Aged about 51 years, Occupation Business. 2. Smt. Rajeshri wd/o Navalkishor Sharma, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Household work. 3. Kushal s/o Navalkishor Sharma, Aged about 18 years, Occupation Education. All r/o Near New Cloth Market, Besides Khetan Agencies, Akola, Ta. And Distt. Akola. ... Appellants/ Org. Plaintiffs Versus 1. Jugalkishor Surajmal Sharma, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Business. 2. Lalitkumar Jugalkishor Sharma, Aged about 30 years, Occupation Business. Both No.1 and 2 R/o Near New Cloth Market, Besides Khetan Agencies, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. 3. Branch Manager, 2 Bank of India, New Cloth Market, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. 4. Shri S.L. Deshpande, Authorised Officer, Bank of India, New Cloth Market, Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola. ... Respondents Shri U.N. Vyas, Advocate for Appellants. Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2. Shri A. Khare, Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2009 Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola below Exhibit 41A on 10-7-2006 holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, directed return of the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3 2. The appellant claims that he is owner of certain properties, which had been mortgaged to secure a debt by respondent No.2 with respondent Nos.3 and 4/Bank. Therefore, he filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing his possession over the suit property, which he had claimed on the basis of a will. It seems that respondent had mortgaged the property on the basis of a unregistered relinquishment-deed. It seems that since the borrower failed to discharge the liability, action under Section 13(4) of the said Act had been taken by the respondent-Bank. The learned Trial Judge rightly held the suit as barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, since Section 17 of the Act provides for adequate remedy to the persons in the position of the present appellant. Section 17 of the Act enables “any person” aggrieved by the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act to make an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from 4 the date on which such measures are taken. The Debt Recovery Tribunal would without doubt consider the time spent by the appellant in approaching this Court as also the Civil Court while considering whether the appellant has filed an application within 45 days as prescribed by Section 17 of the Act, as well as all aspects relating to measures under Section 13(4) of the Act, namely as to whether the property which was subject-matter of the proceedings under Section 13(4), could in fact have been mortgaged by the mortgagor to secure debt taken by respondent No.2. 3. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE Lanjewar